Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Wednesday 24 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Security

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What steps he is taking to create a more normal security environment. [121142]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Government are committed to the normalisation of security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the threat level. Major progress has already been made. On the basis of his assessment of the overall threat level, and following the recent IRA statement, the Chief Constable last week announced a series of normalisation measures. A further review of possible normalisation steps will be conducted in three months' time.

Mr. Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the many casualties of the troubles, particularly those among our armed services? Does he take heart from a recent BBC poll which showed, for the first time, that a majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that the war is over? Can he assure the House that the improved climate of peace can take us a long way to ensuring that the tragic losses of the past need not be repeated?

Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. He was right to say that there have been far too many deaths and casualties over the past 30 years. We take encouragement from opinion polls showing that the people are heartened and determined to see the peace process through. They are clearly calling on their politicians to find a resolution to the difficulties. People

want the improved climate of peace, and they want that peace to last for themselves, their children and the children of future generations.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister agree that the recent sad increase in paramilitary beatings underlines the importance of progressing with and implementing the main thrust of the Patten proposals, to ensure that the rule of law replaces the lawless, brutal rule of paramilitary groups in some parts of the Province?

Mr. Ingram: Paramilitary assaults are a gross abuse of human rights and a denial of civil liberties. They have no place in a democratic society and everyone committed to a peaceful future must roundly condemn them. I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware of grave concern in my constituency following the announcement that the Progressive Unionist party office was harbouring terrorist weapons, including batons that could be used to beat up people? Will he announce that he is reconsidering the Government's talks with the PUP as a Belfast agreement party? Will he take steps to censure the PUP for its terrible breach of security?

Mr. Ingram: First, it is correct to congratulate the Royal Ulster Constabulary on its find. As ever, the RUC has been vigilant, and we should pay tribute to its achievements. Secondly, this is a matter for police investigation, and it would be wrong of me to comment while the police are considering what they have found and all that flows from the find. We should not jump to conclusions before we have all the facts. I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the implications, but no one should doubt that we will not tolerate paramilitary activity from any side of the community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Steve McCabe: My right hon. Friend will be aware of recent speculation about the meanings of "deactivation" and "decommissioning". Can he confirm my understanding that those two processes are not the same thing, but part of a two-stage process to put arms totally beyond use?

Mr. Ingram: The short answer is "absolutely". They are separate approaches. We hope that we have embarked on the first stage and that we shall move inexorably towards the later stages and the removal of illegally held weapons from Northern Ireland, now and in the future.

Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister agree that people would have more confidence in the return of normal security if those who had committed crimes were brought to justice? Does he realise that many of my constituents are deeply concerned that those who committed the Omagh bombing have not been brought to book? Even though the police and the Gardai know who those people were, they appear unable to bring them to justice. Is not some change in the law required so that those who commit such crimes are certain to be brought to justice?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important issue. It behoves everyone who wants a peaceful future for Northern Ireland to co-operate with


the forces of justice and law and order. Anyone who has information or evidence should give it to those who have the authority and responsibility for bringing people to justice. It is a great tragedy that no one has yet been made amenable in Northern Ireland for the terrible crime that was committed at Omagh. My earlier comments of course apply to that tragedy, as they do to every other terrorist and paramilitary crime that has been committed in Northern Ireland. It is better that people co-operate with the law than talk about changes to the law.

Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Minister confirm or deny newspaper reports that the proposals set out in the recent IRA statement had been made previously, were referred to in the unpublished de Chastelain report, and were then rejected?

Mr. Ingram: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman expects me to comment on newspaper reports. I am sure that he would not have done so when he was a Minister. We are moving forward much more rapidly than we have hitherto, and progress is being made. I would have hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have the grace to recognise and welcome that, as his Front Bench has, and to give support to everyone who is trying to make the process work.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the best way to create a more normal security environment is to obtain the decommissioning of the illegally held arms of private armies? Will he again assure the House that no changes in the security arrangements will be made without the full concurrence of the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding?

Mr. Ingram: I think that I made it clear in my first reply that the answer is yes. The Chief Constable makes his assessment, and he advises the Secretary of State and myself. The General Officer Commanding is also consulted, and the best security advice available is taken. The announcements on the recent normalisation steps were made by the Chief Constable. He indicated that if the threat level improved, further announcements could be made in three months or perhaps even earlier.

Health (Cross-border Co-operation)

Mr. John McDonnell: What proposals he has for continued cross-border co-operation on health. [121144]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): There has been a long and productive history of cross-border co-operation on health and social services matters, which has brought positive benefits to the people living in both jurisdictions. This will continue across a range of services including health promotion, food safety and cancer research.

Mr. McDonnell: The all-party group on the Irish in Britain recently considered the matter of health and is keen to encourage the sharing of best practice between clinicians. Will my hon. Friend assure us that cross-border co-operation will enable the sharing of best practice between clinicians north and south, and that there may

be some prospect of financial support for organisations, particularly voluntary organisations, that encourage the sharing of best practice?

Mr. Howarth: There are already significant clinical links between health services, both north and south. I accept that there is scope to develop those links further, particularly when it comes to sharing clinical practices and exchanging information. We believe that such co-operation has the potential to contribute to the quality and effectiveness of services on both sides of the border. Together with Ministers from the south, I have been anxious to promote such co-operation.
Given the right political climate and the right resources, there is also the scope for the voluntary sector to add to the work that is already under way. There will be opportunities for funding, although as any Minister would say in these circumstances, no guarantees can be given from the Dispatch Box about any particular project. However, I would certainly encourage such a development.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has underlined that which is well known. Over the years, long before modern times, there has been good co-operation. It is equally true that when the board in Cork decided to purchase facilities in the Royal Victoria hospital, the local people objected.
I encourage the Minister to give leadership at the level to which he referred. However, does he agree that too many people may have accommodation addresses in Northern Ireland, and that they benefit from our health budget at a time when there is pressure upon the budget throughout Northern Ireland?

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to support that contention, I would be happy to look at it. He will agree that when someone is ill and needs attention, they do not object to receiving the most appropriate treatment in either the north or the Republic if there are appropriate exchange arrangements. Where one gets the best possible treatment is not an ideological issue, and co-operation is logical and sensible in delivering those objectives.

Mr. John McFall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cancer care services agreement signed last autumn with the Republic of Ireland and the Washington-based Institute of Cancer heralds a great future for health services in Northern Ireland and shows that cross-border initiatives are extremely important? Does not that give fresh impetus to the need for the political talks that are taking place in a few days to ensure the restoration of the Executive, so that the people of Northern Ireland can look forward not just to more peace, but to more security and prosperity?

Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on being the Minister responsible for taking that initiative forward. I had the good fortune last autumn to sign the memorandum of understanding between ourselves, the Americans and the Republic of Ireland, which, because of the severe cancer problems in Northern Ireland and much of the south, is a positive development. That is a good example of how co-operation can bring


force to dealing with the serious health problems that exist in the north and the south. It is important that we continue along those lines.

Devolution

Mr. John Wilkinson: What progress he has made towards the re-establishment of devolved government in Northern Ireland. [121145]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): As I explained in my statement to the House on 8 May, devolved government will be restored on 22 May, subject to a positive response to the proposals set out in the joint statement issued by the British and Irish Governments on 5 May, and the statement then made by the Provisional IRA.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does the Secretary of State understand that the cornerstone and sure foundation of any democratic government, be it devolved or national, is the impartial and universal application of the rule of law? In that connection, rather than condoning the maintenance of terrorist weapons, will he insist on their elimination from society at the earliest possible date—because that elimination is infinitely more important than the institution of a Government who are subject to the threats and intimidation that the maintenance of stockpiles of weapons provides? Foreign visitors and inspectors are all very well, but the maintenance of that threat to democracy is deeply perturbing.

Mr. Mandelson: I need no encouragement from the hon. Gentleman to restate my firm commitment to the rule of law throughout the United Kingdom. I agree that the aim must be for democracy to flourish in all parts of the UK. We need all paramilitary organisations to stand down and all arms—wherever they are held—to be completely and verifiably put beyond use. What is unprecedented about the situation now is that we have the real prospect of returning power to Northern Ireland and of making real and substantive progress on arms. Both objectives are ones for which Unionists have rightly held out. They should seize the credit for the progress that has been made.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Can the Secretary of State clarify his intention about a name for the police force in Northern Ireland, as that is a matter of considerable dispute? The longer there is without clarity, the greater the problems are likely to be. It would help if we knew what it is to be.

Mr. Mandelson: Two of Patten's stated objectives were that the RUC should not be disbanded and that the police service in future must be capable of attracting recruits from all parts of the community. We need to judge the future name against both those objectives. The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill requires me to consult the policing board before reaching a final decision on the name. I believe that the sensible way forward is to provide a legal description in the Bill which incorporates the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in effect the title deeds of the new service, while introducing a new name that will be used for all working and operational purposes. The Police

Service of Northern Ireland is the best suggestion so far. In that way we should be able to meet both of Patten's correct objectives.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of the further unhelpful intervention this morning from the south of Ireland Foreign Minister, Mr. Cowen, when he condemned the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill which is before the House, does the Secretary of State think that he would enjoy less harassment if, instead of struggling to restore devolution, we continued with direct rule?

Mr. Mandelson: No, I do not think that it would be in the interest of Northern Ireland or all those in every part the community there for direct rule to continue. For politics to flourish, locally elected and accountable politicians, taking responsibility for local decisions, is by far the best course for Northern Ireland's government in the future. I believe that we now have the prospect of reinstituting the devolved Administration and making real, lasting and permanent progress in the removal for ever of arms from Northern Ireland politics. We should seize that opportunity for fear that, if it slips from our grasp now, we may not be able to recreate it in the future.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that the only true and lasting basis for the re-establishment of devolution in Northern Ireland would be on the basis of the accord reached between the two Governments and the parties participating? Does he agree that the only accord in existence is that obtained at Hillsborough on 5 May, and that that is the basis upon which re-establishment should take place? Does he also agree that a Government entering into further unilateral negotiations with a single party is creating an element of distrust which is diametrically opposed to the possibility of that accord being sustained in the immediate future?

Mr. Mandelson: No. I think that it is as well for all politicians, political leaders and parties in Northern Ireland to clarify to the maximum extent exactly what the two Government statements meant and what actions and progress would ensue from the agreement. The Government intend to implement the Good Friday agreement in full. That is what is at the heart of the accord and the joint statements made by the two Governments. It is the essential political context in which we can restore the devolved institutions and make the necessary progress on arms. Implementation of the Good Friday agreement is essential and it is what the Government will press on with come what may.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: As the Secretary of State is aware, we hope that there will be circumstances that allow for the setting up of the devolved Executive next week. On the assumption that that happens, the House needs to be clear about the right hon. Gentleman's position on suspension. He will be aware that there have been numerous reports in the Dublin press that some deal has been done with the Irish Government so that if there is default, he cannot suspend the Executive, as he rightly did a couple of months ago.

Mr. Mandelson: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his good news, which we have learned


today. It would be churlish of me to say that I am looking forward to his paternity leave. We wait to see what decision he makes.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I can say emphatically that no such undertaking has been given. Obviously, I am planning for success, not failure, following the restoration of the institutions next Monday. I am not planning to suspend the institutions and I do not want to do so, but the power is there if, in the last resort, I have to.

Mr. MacKay: May I press the Secretary of State further? We want an assurance that he has given no private undertaking that, in the unhappy circumstance of there having been breaches of the arrangements, he will not suspend? May we have a categorical assurance that Dublin has no veto on this or any other matter, and that if it is necessary he will be prepared to suspend the Executive as he rightly did some two months ago?

Mr. Mandelson: There has been absolutely no agreement or understanding with the Irish Government of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman has described. Obviously, if the worst comes to the worst, I will want to consult all the parties and the Irish Government—I do not intend to act unilaterally, without consulting people, or in a precipitate way—but at the end of the day, if the institutions are collapsing, I must ensure the good governance of Northern Ireland, and I will do so.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Mr. Ben Chapman: What assessment he has made of the impact of the Budget on small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland. [121146]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): There can be no question but that the Budget announcement will help the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland, through encouraging competitiveness and innovation and through the use of e-commerce. That, of course, will be on top of the announcement made this morning by LEDU—the Local Economic Development Unit, which is Northern Ireland's small business agency—that more than 3,000 jobs were created and more than 1,200 new businesses were set up last year alone. That is all good news for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while those Budget measures are beneficial and welcome in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland economy needs stability, peace and confidence, and that to that extent the measures that he is putting in place are just as important as those put in place by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor? Does he further agree that in Northern Ireland there is a particular issue about research and development expenditure in the small firms sector, which is lower than in any other region of the UK? What steps does he propose to take to remedy that?

Mr. Ingram: I agree with my hon. Friend's earlier comments. He is right to talk about confidence and

stability being essential to help businesses to grow. Peace is undoubtedly another important ingredient, which we are striving to achieve.
The R and D tax relief measures outlined in the Budget should encourage innovation by small businesses, helping them to achieve greater competitiveness. That will help not only those businesses but those who are seeking jobs in Northern Ireland, and it will embed the peace process.

Police-Terrorist Collusion

Mr. David Trimble: What information he has supplied and what representations he has made to the Irish Government with regard to suspected collusion between members of the Irish police and terrorist organisations. [121149]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Government keep in regular contact with the Irish Government on security-related matters. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently wrote to the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform following his announcement in the Dail on 13 April of an internal Garda investigation into allegations of Garda-PIRA collusion. That followed previous representations to the Irish Government in November and December last year—[Interruption.] The Government welcome the investigation and hope that it will be concluded thoroughly and speedily. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the Minister, nor can Mr. Trimble hear the answer. I do not know what is going on. Had the Minister completed his answer?

Mr. Ingram: indicated assent.

Madam Speaker: Could you hear the answer, Mr. Trimble?

Mr. Trimble: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Good—because I could not. Let us hear your supplementary question.

Mr. Trimble: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
I thank the Minister for the representations that are being made to the Irish authorities about the cases in which there is suspicion of collusion between Irish police and paramilitaries. May I refer him to one such case, involving the murder of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, and in particular the report in Toby Harnden's authoritative book, which says that after the incident the RUC had evidence of a telephone call from an officer in Dundalk Gardai station to the IRA, setting up the ambush? Has that information and evidence been supplied to the Irish authorities and, if so, when?

Mr. Ingram: Those who have the information would of course have supplied it, if it is in the hands of the authorities, through either the Government or the RUC. Clearly, we want a very thorough investigation into that murder and the others of which the right hon. Gentleman is all too well aware. We will monitor those investigations closely because the important aspect is that the killings took place in our jurisdiction in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. David Winnick: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not good news that the murderous leader of the rebels in Sierra Leone has been captured and taken to a safe location? Will he be tried for crimes against humanity, as I hope he will? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate if we were ever to apologise when British service personnel are acting in defence of international law and the authority of the United Nations? Perhaps a few isolationists on the Tory Benches will learn that lesson.

The Prime Minister: We can be very, very proud of our armed forces and what they have done in Sierra Leone. I believe that they should have been able to perform their task without some of the carping and quibbling from Conservative Members because the whole world is witnessing and applauding their central role in trying to deal with the so-called rebel army, which, in truth, is a criminal gang that has visited the most appalling atrocities on innocent civilians in Sierra Leone. I hope that the whole House is behind our armed forces in their efforts.

Mr. William Hague: The chairman of the Police Federation has said that the reductions in police numbers in the past 18 months have left some
communities with no policing at all
and produced
a sense of disorder and anarchy
in some inner-city areas. Why does the Prime Minister think he said that?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that policing is in crisis; I do not agree with that. I accept that the numbers, which went down by 2,000 in the last years of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, continued to go down in the first three years of this Government. By the end of this year, however, those numbers will be rising again as a result of the additional funds that we have put in—money that he is committed to take away from the police.

Mr. Hague: So the Prime Minister does not understand why the Police Federation says that. He is meant to be able to cope with these questions now. His office sent a memo around the civil service, a report on which says:
Rattled Tony Blair has caused fury in Whitehall by issuing new orders to civil servants to stop William Hague making a fool of him in the Commons.

The memo from his private secretary says that the "lines to take" prepared for the Prime Minister
are often unusable and the facts are wrong.
Well, we have been telling him that for years and nothing has changed. Why is it still the same today?
The Police Federation has said that because police numbers are down by 2,300, thousands of serious offenders have been released early and crime is rising for the first time in six years. If the right hon. Gentleman has not understood that problem, will he listen to the former Minister for Welfare Reform who said that welfare
fraud is so serious no Minister
tells
the public its true scale
and the Government have abandoned his attempts to combat it? Why does he think that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps I can quote what the right hon. Gentleman's own chief constable has said on crime. The chief constable of North Yorkshire said:
Our crime figures put into context some of the wild claims that have been made about the supposed wave of lawlessness sweeping rural England. Across North Yorkshire's largely rural two million acres we are driving crime down year after year.
I have the latest crime figures for the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, and they show a fall of 3.2 per cent.
On welfare, welfare bills for economic and social failure, which rose under the Tories by 4 per cent. in real terms every year, have fallen under this Government.

Mr. Hague: The reason that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said what he did is that welfare fraud is now up to £7 billion. The Prime Minister ought to know that because, after all his broken promises, fraud should be his special subject; he should know about these things. The number of successful prosecutions for housing benefit has been halved, and the Green Paper on benefit fraud has been shelved, but if he does not understand that problem, does he have an answer to the accountants Ernst and Young? They said last week that the burden of direct personal taxation in the current financial year is at the highest level for 20 years. Why does he think that they said that?

The Prime Minister: The actual report of Ernst and Young made it clear that the tax burden next year and the year after is falling. [Interruption.] Yes, but it is more than that. The right hon. Gentleman's shadow Chancellor was interviewed a few days ago on how he could pay for both his tax policy and his commitments on spending. He said that the Conservatives can do it because now
fortunately the national finances are good enough.

Mr. Hague: What the Prime Minister needs to learn about is the family finances of the families of this country. The reason, which he does not know, why Ernst and Young said what it did is that the typical working family is paying £670 more in tax under his Government per year and the overall tax burden has gone up by 8p on the basic rate, or the equivalent of—and he said no tax increases at all.
If the Prime Minister does not understand the tax figures, did he understand the comments of the Confederation of British Industry yesterday? It said that the Government's policies
all add up to the biggest and most damaging overhaul of…regulation for 20 years.
Why does he think that the CBI said that?

The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman why the CBI said that because I have figures here for the CBI and the burden of regulation. The main part of it is the minimum wage. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the minimum wage now. The second part of it is paid holidays under the working time directive. Is he against that? The third part of it�žI have an interest in this—is parental leave. Is he against that?

Mr. Hague: Once again, wherever they are looking for the facts, they are not coming up with many because £10 billion of extra regulation is the cost without the minimum wage, according to the British Chambers of Commerce. The Prime Minister clearly does not know what is happening in the real world, so does he know what is happening in the Government? Why did the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland yesterday blow open the Prime Minister's real intentions on the euro? Was he speaking for himself, or for the Government?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept even the premise of the right hon. Gentleman's question. What the Secretary of State said, perfectly rightly, was that, of course, if one is outside a fixed currency area, then one's exchange rate will vary against the currencies inside it. I would have thought that even the right hon. Gentleman could have got that one.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the memorandum from the civil service a bit earlier and all these killer facts. Fortunately, this week, it has given me some things that I would like to tell the House. The system has got better. This is what it says: crime doubled under the Tories—killer fact; unemployment trebled under the Tories—killer fact; interest rates reached 15 per cent. under the Tories—killer fact; child poverty tripled under the Tories—killer fact; there were 40,000 fewer beds in the health service under the Tories—killer fact. Killer judgment—we should not have the Tories back again.

Mr. Hague: The truth is that the Prime Minister is in office now and responsible for these matters—that is the killer fact. So now we know from him that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland speaks for the Government on the euro. That will be big news to a lot of people, including the Chancellor. They talk about the euro, but they are out of touch on crime, they are out of touch on tax, and they are out of touch on welfare fraud. We now have a Prime Minister who hears but does not listen, who speaks but says nothing, and who pretends to lead but is going nowhere.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I must tell the right hon. Gentleman this. He talked about our record in government, but the killer facts do not stop with his record. Killer fact—inflation is now at its lowest level for

25 years; killer fact—there are 920,000 more jobs under this Government; killer fact—1.2 million children have been lifted out of poverty.
Killer judgment? How about this, from his very, very own—[Interruption.] Yes, this is from that mine of quotations, the shadow Chancellor:
Well, governments are in a strong position when the economy is doing well, there's absolutely no denying that and I'm not going to go around saying that the economy is not doing well.
I gave the killer facts and he gave the killer judgment—and so will the British people at the next election.

Ms Jenny Jones: Like many other Members, from time to time I have to explain to my constituents why their close relatives have not been allowed into this country to attend weddings and funerals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my task will be made more difficult if Mike Tyson, who has been convicted of a serious criminal offence, is allowed into the country for purely commercial gain?

The Prime Minister: I am tempted to say that that is a decision for the Home Secretary—and I should be glad about that. Let me simply say, however, that I am afraid I agree with the Home Secretary's previous decision. He will obviously have to make his decision over the next few weeks, and I am sure that he will do so.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said last night that as long as we remained outside the euro we could not protect our industry against an overvalued pound, was he on-message or off-message?

The Prime Minister: Of course, as I just pointed out to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), if we are outside a fixed currency area our exchange rate will vary, but whether we should join a single currency depends on the meeting of economic conditions that we have set out time and again. That is the sensible position.
Lest anyone should think that the issue of currency stability is new, let me quote from what the Chancellor said in his initial statement to the House in October 1997. He said:
The potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability.—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 583.]
He went on to say, however:
The economic conditions, which are really about sustainable convergence, have to be met.
That is the position, and it remains the position.

Mr. Kennedy: As the Prime Minister has had some time to think about the position since the Chancellor's statement, can he give the benefit of his analysis, as of today? When does he expect us to meet the Chancellor's economic criteria, and does he hope that we will meet the Government's criteria? Is it not about time that he began to give a real national lead?

The Prime Minister: The timetable is as I have set it out many times, and that was repeated by the Chancellor in his statement.
There are really three positions on the single currency. One is to rule it out as a matter of principle. The second is to say that we will join immediately. The third is to say that whether we join depends on the economic conditions' being met. But the timing depends on the economic conditions. Unless the right hon. Gentleman believes that we should join now—

Mr. Kennedy: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman believes the same as me—that it depends on the meeting of those economic conditions. The sensible position on the single currency is to say that the test is jobs, industry and British investment. The final say is with the people in a referendum, and what would be most damaging would be to rule it out for five years, 10 years or whatever arbitrary period the Conservatives have in mind. The best thing is to keep the option open and to exercise it according to the economic conditions. If that is not the right hon. Gentleman's position, he should say so.

Dr. Tony Wright: On the question of Europe, could my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he can envisage any realistic circumstances in the foreseeable future in which, having applied all the necessary tests, he might conclude that it was not in the British national interest to join the single European currency?

The Prime Minister: As I said a moment or two ago, we have already set out the timetable for an assessment of that, as we have said, early in the next Parliament. However, it is the economic conditions that count. [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members disagree with that, but I believe that in the end the test for the British people—they will have the final say in a referendum—will be what is good for British jobs, British prosperity and British industry. The sensible thing is not to set ourselves an arbitrary time limit, but to say that we should judge it according to the economic conditions. That is precisely what we have done.

Mr. John Randall: Could the Prime Minister explain why, last week, within hours of giving his personal pledge to this Chamber that Labour Members of the Greater London Assembly would abide by their manifesto commitment not to introduce congestion charges, the Labour Deputy Mayor said that they were possible—that it was just a matter of technicalities? Did someone forget to tell the Prime Minister, or is his word just worthless?

The Prime Minister: No, the Labour Members of the GLA, as far as I am aware, have made it clear that they do not support congestion charging.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If Stella Rimington is to publish her memoirs, can we be sure that they are not selective? Will there be a chapter about 1986, when she acted as an agent provocateur for David Hart and Margaret Thatcher against the National Union of Mineworkers?

The Prime Minister: First, if the memoirs are not selective, they will be the first ones that I have ever come

across that are not. Secondly, anyone who has occupied the type of position that Dame Stella Rimington occupied has to go through a procedure to publish memoirs, and that is the procedure that she is going through now. That is something that will take its course in the normal way. I really cannot comment on what happened in 1986—when, as my hon. Friend probably recalls, we were not in office.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Whether or not a commercial broadcaster will cover the Queen Mother's 100th birthday celebrations, does the Prime Minister share my disgust at the BBC's arrogant refusal to provide live coverage of them on either of its two terrestrial channels? If he does agree, what will he do to persuade the BBC to take an alternative course of action, and how will he spell out to it the meaning of public service broadcasting?

The Prime Minister: I hope that, later, a way through on the matter will be found. I think that everyone would like to see a televised broadcast of the Queen Mother's celebration, because everyone wishes her well. It will be a fantastic event for the whole nation. I therefore very much hope that the matter can be resolved.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as we have had traffic congestion for decades in the Aire valley, in my constituency, it is extremely welcome news that the Government have accelerated construction of the £60 million Bingley relief road? However, would he take it from me that my constituents are very worried indeed about what would happen to that scheme—about whether it would be scrapped—if the Conservatives' spending cuts guarantee were ever implemented?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions tells me that my hon. Friend was extremely active in ensuring that that decision was taken. I therefore congratulate him on the decision, which I am sure is good news for his constituents. Of course, the point that he makes about Tory spending is right. At some point before the next general election, Conservative Members will have to explain how they can go around the country saying that they will chop everyone's taxes at the same time as increasing spending in virtually every single policy area. Their sums do not add up. At some point, they will have to explain them.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Prime Minister understand that the people of north-east Scotland were devastated by yesterday's announcement that RAF Buchan is to be downgraded, with the loss of 350 jobs and almost £10 million a year to the local economy? Does he also appreciate the resentment caused by the fact that, when the number of control reporting centres in the air surveillance system is being reduced from three to two, the two that are being retained are in England, whereas the centre that has been closed is the advanced one, in Scotland? What assurances can he give


to hard-pressed Aberdeenshire council on how it will be able to cope with this latest blow to the local economy, which is already coping with cuts and redundancies?

The Prime Minister: Of course we will do what we can to help Aberdeenshire council, but the changes that are taking place are part of an overall review of how we make best use of the resources that we have. In those changes, there will be things that people find unpopular or unpalatable, but they are necessary to put the service on a sound footing for the future. We will work with those who are displaced to make sure that they are provided for elsewhere.

Mr. Tony Colman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one month before the last election, the then Tory Government effectively closed my local hospital—Queen Mary's, Roehampton? Is he further aware that in the past month, the new Queen Mary's hospital has been given the go-ahead for building to start next year? Does he agree that that shows the difference between a Tory Government who closed hospitals and a Labour Government who open hospitals?

The Prime Minister: That is an important announcement for my hon. Friend's constituency. Although many people want to point to the bad things and the difficulties that the health service has, it is worth pointing out the good news, too. There are many cases throughout the country of change happening on the ground, allowing us to build new hospitals and recruit more nurses. We have seen from the figures today that, although there is a long way to go, in-patient and out-patient lists are coming down. Yes, we have a great deal more to do, but real change is happening and I wish that among some of the coverage of the bad cases and the problems we got some coverage of some of the good news that is happening as well.

Mr. David Trimble: May I refer the Prime Minister to the recent statement by the IRA? In particular, I refer to the passage that says that it will initiate
a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use.
What does "beyond use" mean? Does the Prime Minister agree that a system under which dumps are occasionally inspected would not be a satisfactory outcome? We want proper decommissioning within the terms of the legislation that is on the statute book for it.

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. The dumps are an important confidence-building measure, but they are not a substitute for the full action that needs to be taken under the legislation. The legislation refers to arms being permanently unusable. It is very important that people understand that the confidence-building measure is a first step, but no more than that. A re-engagement with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning also has to be undertaken. We then need to make progress until the weapons are completely, verifiably beyond use.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend accept through me the sincere thanks and appreciation of the miners and the mining communities for the initiative and help that he and his

Government have given to the mining industry, thereby demonstrating confidence in and loyalty to those communities? Will he consider including clean coal technology along with energy renewables, thereby encouraging investment in the construction of clean coal power stations, which in turn would ensure a long-term future for the miners?

The Prime Minister: It is important to support clean coal technology. Particularly when there is still tremendous change in the mining industry, it is important that we do what we can to help. That is why the Government provided additional help for the coal industry a few weeks ago. I am pleased to see that unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency has fallen by more than 20 per cent. in the past year. That is important. Employment is also up in his constituency. That shows that even in parts of the country undergoing economic change, there are other jobs there. We are trying to help people through the process of change and we are on their side. We will do what we can to give the coal industry a secure and environmentally beneficial future.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Conservatives take tremendous pride in the success of British arms in Sierra Leone? It is quite wrong for him to suggest that it should be otherwise. Will he also explain to the House why, in view of his much-vaunted and much-hyped plan for European defence co-operation, not one of our European allies and friends has come to help us in what is a very difficult task?

The Prime Minister: I absolve the hon. Gentleman entirely from the carping and quibbling that I talked about earlier, although I do not absolve those on the Conservative Front Bench and other Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman asked about European forces. A UN force is primarily expected to deal with the situation in Sierra Leone and it is natural that forces should have been drawn from India, Nigeria and Jordan. We have played a supporting role. Obviously, we have an interest in Sierra Leone, as the former colonial power, and our troops have made a magnificent contribution. However, we should not necessarily expect that to be right for the European force.

Mr. James Plaskitt: Parish councils in my constituency have raised with me the issue of rural policing. Police numbers in Warwickshire fell under the previous Government, but they will now rise by 52 over the next two years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that increased police numbers are central to addressing rural concerns, as opposed to the knee-jerk suggestions that we have heard from the crime doublers opposite?

Hon. Members: Bye bye!

The Prime Minister: The Conservatives are all shouting, "Bye bye" to my hon. Friend, but I think they have forgotten Romsey. Their memories are very short. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not merely has burglary declined by 10 per cent. in his area, but there are 52 new recruits to the police service. It is worth pointing out that in 24 of the 43 forces crime is falling. We shall


ensure that because of the extra recruits that will be coming on throughout this year, by the end of the year police numbers will rise again. If we carry on running a sound and strong economy, as the shadow Chancellor would have it, we shall be able to get the money in for the future that will allow those numbers to rise even further over time.

Jackie Ballard: We have not forgotten Romsey.
Eight months after the Prime Minister promised access to dentistry for all, not one dentist in my constituency is taking new national health service patients. Earlier today, Government Whips phoned my office to find out what my question was about, so I know that the Prime Minister's response will be well prepared. However, I hope that he does not just tell my constituents that they can phone and go. They are fed up with having to travel 20 miles even for emergency treatment. When will the Government take effective action to end the crisis in dentistry?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is right to say that I did get some briefing on her question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are we going to hear the answer?"] I will tell the hon. Lady what it says here anyway. The numbers registered with dentists in Somerset are increasing—they are 5,000 up on last year. However, I accept that NHS dentistry went into steep decline under the previous Government. We are now acting at every single point on the health service, but it will take time. We have set the date for the end of next year to make sure that everyone who wants access to NHS dentistry can have it. The numbers are already up. Up to 800,000 more people have had the opportunity to register with a dentist. Dentist figures in England are up to 18,000, but there is still a long way to go. I recognise that in the hon. Lady's constituency and elsewhere there may be people who still have to be dealt with under the programme, but given time we will do it.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who invites a convicted rapist and attacker of old people in a road rage incident to star in a boxing match is hardly acting consistently with the Government's message against crime and violence and, in particular, violence against women?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot offer my hon. Friend anything other than what I said in response to the same question a few minutes ago.

Mr. Martin Bell: I make no apology for returning to the issue of a gratuity for former far east prisoners of war. The Ministry of Defence is said to be against it on the grounds that it would set a precedent. Does the Prime Minister share my view that it is a matter not of precedent but of principle, that we owe these men a debt of honour and that it is a debt that we should pay?

The Prime Minister: As I think I said to the hon. Gentleman when he raised the matter a couple of weeks ago, it is under consideration. A decision will be announced as soon as possible. It would not be wise for me to say anything more until it is announced.

Mr. Paul Goggins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the 1995 United Nations social summit the previous Conservative Government made a promise to put in place an anti-poverty strategy for the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that shortly afterwards the then Secretary of State for Social Security said that such a plan was unnecessary? Given the appalling scale of poverty that the previous Government left behind, will my right hon. Friend ensure that his Government are not so complacent, and that a full report is given to the social summit when it reconvenes in Geneva next month?

The Prime Minister: We can be very proud of our record on child poverty. As I said earlier, during this Parliament 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty. There has been a 26 per cent. increase in child benefit in real terms, and the working families tax credit is benefiting—by more than £20 a week in many cases—some one and a quarter million families.
People should know that this is a key dividing line between us and the Conservative party. The Opposition are committed to scrapping every bit of the changes that we have introduced over the past few years. They are against the rise in child benefit, they are committed to scrapping the working families tax credit, and they are committed to scrapping the new deal. Those are three of the best reasons that I can think of for never voting Tory again.

Police Training and Complaints

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on two important developments that will help to improve the effectiveness of the police and their accountability to the communities that they serve.
The first announcement relates to the handling of complaints against the police. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is publishing this afternoon a feasibility study of an independent police complaints system. The study was commissioned from the management consultants KPMG in order to take forward recommendations made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report on police disciplinary and complaints procedures, and by Sir William Macpherson's report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. The human rights organisation Liberty is also publishing today an independent report on its vision for the future police complaints system, and I welcome Liberty's constructive contribution to the debate on the police complaints system.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has previously indicated his sympathy for the principle of an independent system for investigating complaints against the police, and both the KPMG and Liberty reports contain constructive ideas on how that might work in practice. We do not, at this stage, have a preferred model for a new complaints system, but we are clear that if any reform of the current system is to command public confidence, it must involve a greater independent element in the investigation of complaints and greater openness in respect of the result of those investigations.
We are also publishing a consultation paper this afternoon to invite comments on the key issues raised by the KPMG and Liberty reports. That paper is being placed in the Library of the House, along with the two reports. The consultation period will run until 30 June, and in the light of the comments received, we intend to announce by the end of the year more detailed proposals on the way forward.
We are also announcing today a wide range of measures to improve the quality and effectiveness of police training in England and Wales, with a view to improving efficiency, using the most modern training techniques, and strengthening police relations with the communities that they serve and with victims of crime.
On 18 November last year we published a consultation paper that set out ambitious proposals. We want to ensure high quality profession-long training for all police staff. We will put in place common national standards for all staff, which will ensure consistency of service to the public. We want to ensure that police training—which already enjoys a well deserved international reputation—is truly world class.
Training is at the heart of effective and responsive policing. Virtually all those who responded to the consultation paper welcomed the fact that training was being examined and debated. The majority of responses broadly welcomed the proposals. In a Home Office paper available in the Library of the House, I have set out the main comments on each element of the proposals and how we plan to take these measures forward.
We will streamline the existing police training council so that it can advise the Home Secretary more effectively. We will work with the Association of Chief Police

Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and the relevant staff associations to establish a new police national training organisation to promote skills within the service. A central police college, building on the work done by national police training, will be established. It will be a centre of excellence within the police service and will act as a standard on both the national and international stage.
We will set a mandatory curriculum and qualifications framework, in consultation with the key stakeholders, which will support the achievement of common standards and profession-long learning and recognition. Regional collaboration between forces on training, driven by best value, will maximise the use of resources and ensure that best practice is shared. We will work with forces to ensure that the opportunities to be gained from greater use of IT and of joint training with other services can be fully realised.
Chief officers and police authorities will produce annual plans to ensure the continuous development of all staff. A dedicated training inspectorate, headed by a lay inspector, will be created within Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to support and monitor quality assurance. Finally, the existing powers of the Home Secretary will be strengthened where necessary, to ensure that the new arrangements will deliver real improvements.
There are numerous examples of excellence in police training at present. The measures that we are announcing today are an ambitious programme of work to build on this good practice where it exists and secure changes where they are necessary.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I begin by thanking the Minister for giving me early sight of the statement. He will understand that the Opposition will want to comment in more detail in due course on the documents that he has produced.
The Minister will know that the Police Federation and others have called for a fully independent complaints authority. The Opposition support that in principle, but does he agree that it is vital that any system should command the support not just of the public, but of the police at all levels?
The Minister referred to reports from KPMG and from Liberty. Those documents suggest some very different solutions to important issues. For example, KPMG suggests that most complaints would still be investigated by the police, but that a few high-profile cases would be investigated by an independent agency. In contrast, Liberty suggests many more independent investigations. What is the Minister's view on that crucial issue, which is vital to the proposal?
KPMG suggests that the independent agency teams conducting the independent investigations would include police officers, whereas Liberty proposes a team that is basically civilian. Does the Minister accept that suggestions in the media that people such as journalists might conduct the investigations raise important issues of natural justice? Would not it be more proper to use trained investigators with experience of investigation for that purpose?
Is not it crucial that the new agency should be led by people who are seen to be genuinely impartial, and not by people who have particular axes to grind? Does the


Minister agree that investigations should be conducted in a highly professional and effective manner, and that the agency should operate in the same way?
The Commission for Racial Equality has proposed recently that it should investigate allegations of racist conduct by officers. Is there not a danger that that could lead to two investigations of each complaint? Would not it be better if the new independent agency dealt with all such cases?
Does the Minister agree that the consultation period, which ends on 30 June, is very short, given the seriousness and complexity of the issue? Is he prepared to reconsider the length of that period?
We welcome the commitment to improved training, but paragraph 7 of the consultation paper states simply that the aim will be to build
a portfolio of skills, knowledge and understanding…
Will the Minister assure the House that the proposal is for training in catching criminals, preparing cases, patrolling the streets and practical policing, and that the training will not merely be an AS-level in sociology?
The Minister spoke of consulting the key stakeholders about the curriculum, but who does he mean? The consultation document talks about regional collaboration. Will he confirm that that is not a step down the road to regional policing? What assurances can he give us about that?
What assurances can the Minister give that police officers will be able to take up these opportunities? With 2,500 fewer officers in Britain now than at the time of the general election, the number of specials down by 3,500, and the sort of crisis that the Police Federation described this week, can policemen be spared from the front line?
Last autumn, the so-called Milburn letter stated that training facilities for the police would be fully stretched in dealing with new recruits. How can the extensive additional training that the Minister proposes today be accomplished?
Although the complaints procedure and training are important, the public will be bewildered because the Government have not made a statement to say that they will restore police numbers to the level that they inherited, explain how they will deal with the rising tide of crime and back the PC on the beat in his job. The uniformed officer is the bedrock of the police service.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support in principle for an independent complaints system. We welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman's first point was about the extent of independence. As he said, the two reports have different orientations. It is helpful that they have been published together so that we can consider the issues fully. Like both studies, we accept that it is not feasible for the independent body to investigate every complaint. Independent investigation should concentrate on the most serious complaints, which are likely to cover deaths in police custody, police shootings and other cases that involve possibly serious criminal offences.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the importance of retaining the confidence of the police throughout the process. He knows that both inquiries consulted the police widely and included representation from the police, whose approach has been very positive.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the process must be highly professional, and must be seen to be impartial. It is important to meld those two aspects. The reports suggest doing that in slightly different ways. That is why we are consulting on the points that we outlined.
Racist conduct should be tackled by the police complaints process, as it is now. It will be tackled in the overall approach that we described. I agree that there is no case for a further, separate investigatory process.
The consultation period is not too short. We held substantial discussions in the build-up to the reports, the results of which have been published. All the main interests considered the issues and expressed views. Most of the country—and the police—want to reach a resolution about how to progress as rapidly as possible. That is why I am keen to be in a position to announce conclusions by the end of this year.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned training. The "portfolio of skills" contains practical skills for policing. He made a snide remark about AS-level in sociology—a somewhat alien concept. Yesterday, we both attended the Police Federation conference in Brighton, and serious training for serious police skills was a high priority there. That is what we recommend.
The stakeholders are principally the police, but also communities and other elements in the criminal justice system. Regional collaboration is important because it will provide better value, but it is not a stalking horse for regional police forces.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned officers' take-up and made his usual point about police numbers, but I am dealing with training today. That is the way in which I intend to address the problem.

Mr. Robin Corbett: On behalf of the Home Affairs Committee, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his positive response to our reports on complaints, and on recruitment and training. Will he confirm that he wants to tackle the needs of the police and the public better by providing a totally independent system for the classes of serious complaint that he mentioned?
Apart from police numbers—I understand the arguments about that—our police need better training so that they are more effective in the performance of their jobs and can thus fulfil the growing demands and expectations of the public.
There is an extremely strong case for a biddable fund to enable police forces throughout the country to bid for specific amounts of money to upgrade their IT systems, and thus have one more tool in the battle against crime.

Mr. Clarke: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's Select Committee for the work that it has done, which has substantially informed our conclusions. First, we need a complaints system that has the confidence of both the police and the community, and that is what we are working towards. Secondly, training is critical. Both the public and the police are looking for better trained police to deal with a highly modern and rapidly changing environment—whether to deal with technological change, investigative change of the type that has been mentioned, or victims of crime. There are a range of different issues. The police want training. It is our job to provide it.
There is a case for a biddable fund of the type that my hon. Friend mentioned for information and communications technology. ICT training is an important element in all this. He will be aware of the significant investment—£40 million—that we announced a few months ago, to give proper intelligence systems to all police forces in Britain and to accelerate work on those issues.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like others, I welcome the Government's progress as outlined in the Minister's two mini-statements. Will he confirm that all complaints will be recorded and investigated, and that doing so will not be at the discretion of the police? Will he also confirm that in the investigations, as well as experts there will be a lay element representative of the ordinary public, so that they may have continuing confidence?
There will be a great cost saving because of the reduction in cases taken up against the police, and that must be taken into account when we cost a decent complaints system. Will the Minister confirm that as a result of this procedure, subject to the usual constraints about the programme, we should be able to legislate in the coming financial year?
Finally, on complaints, will the Minister tell the House whether he still intends to consider matters that have been the cause for complaint in previous allegations, which are regarded as not having been adequately investigated, and are still the cause of considerable disquiet about both the old and the present system?
Of course good training is required, but as we both heard yesterday from the police—as we always do—if we do not recruit and retain enough police officers, all the training in the world is of little worth.
Will the Minister consider seriously whether the Government will accept the royal commission proposal—the idea of a standing conference on police matters, so that we may continuously receive advice from the police, the public and politicians on best training, best practice and recruitment? Will he urgently ensure that an independent review takes place of the police numbers that we need in England and Wales, so that we get the answer before the Chancellor announces the results of the public spending review? It is no good the money being announced if in a year's time, people realise that they really need the 10,000, or 5,000, extra police—genuinely extra—that the public and the police say that they want.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right about recording all complaints. Both reports deal with that issue, and we need to achieve that system. I agree that we need a lay element in any complaints system. The hon. Gentleman is also right about cost savings. The time that it takes to investigate some cases is simply ludicrous. That would be much improved by having a proper independent system to deal with all these areas.
Legislation is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that if we can reach conclusions rapidly, at least the possibility of such legislation being considered for the programme can be raised and discussed. He also made an important point about previous allegations, as is evident from a number of noted

recent cases. We will have to consider exactly how to deal with those once a completely new system has been established.
On training, for the reasons that have been outlined, the key is to put in resources. Part of the comprehensive spending review process is to find out what commitment we will be able to make in that direction.
I am not sympathetic to the idea of a standing conference or royal commission, although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said to the Police Federation that he was prepared to discuss that issue with the federation and others to find out the best way to proceed. I am also sceptical about the idea of an independent review of numbers. There are serious issues concerning numbers, which are commonplace in debate in this place and more widely, and those are matters that must be resolved in that context.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I give a strong welcome to what the Minister has told us. However, will he accept the following points? One of the problems of the present system is that it simply is not trusted because it is opaque and desperately slow. Obviously, one issue that must be tackled is the speed with which complaints are reviewed. Slow review is almost as bad as no review.
As for cases that are not subject to independent scrutiny, will the Minister address the fact that no one gains from an opaque system—not the complainant, not the police and not the public—if at the end of the process, there is distrust about whether proper investigation has been done? We must therefore open up the process, even for cases in which, as the Minister proposes, investigation will continue.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should have said more about the relationship between training and complaints. The best way of dealing with the issue of complaints is to minimise their number, as the police themselves are dealing well with victims of crime and all those who might otherwise have had a complaint. Strong training is an important element in achieving that. Of course, whatever the process, once a complaint is made, it is critical that all parties, including the police, the victim and everyone else involved, have full confidence in the outcome.
It is true that the opacity and slowness of the system are serious problems. The slowness often increases mistrust. People cannot understand how the process can take so long, and immediately start to draw the conclusion that the police are trying to hide things, when that might not be the case. Everyone will benefit from a much faster process.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am increasingly in favour of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that there should be a standing conference, which would allow a growing exchange of views and an interface between the police, the public whom they serve, and politicians and councillors representing the public.
Will the new complaints procedure give scope to politicians, councillors and ordinary members of the public who are concerned about police decisions to close custody suites without appropriate, proper and full consultation? They are also concerned about the limited


opening hours of police stations, especially at night, and their effect on the public and their security. Are all those issues covered? I am deeply concerned that the relationship between the public and the police is worsening, and that people have less confidence in the police than at any time that I can remember.

Mr. Clarke: The evidence goes against that, and shows that the public have confidence in the police—rightly so, in my opinion. Locally, the Government have established the kind of interchange to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. In our local crime reduction partnerships, there are exchanges between police and other agencies, individuals, voluntary and community organisations and so on, about precisely the type of matter that he has mentioned. Good discussions often take place and important issues are addressed. That is a perfectly appropriate way to act.
I am rather sceptical about the merits of a national organisation, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). However, for many of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman implied, we have established local channels of dialogue.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement on dealing with police complaints in future. However, I reiterate my request for an independent inquiry into the current state of play in the Metropolitan police, against the backdrop of parliamentary replies that he has given me since Christmas and the powerful articles by Laurie Flynn and Michael Gillard in The Guardian. Those articles offer prima facie examples of probable corrupt practice by those who are supposed to investigate complaints against police officers.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to his parliamentary reply of 16 March in response to my question about the cost of Metropolitan police suspensions in the past 10 years. I asked about outcomes—who had been reinstated, who had been dismissed or disciplined and who had been subject to criminal prosecution. I received an unacceptable reply—I am talking not about my hon. Friend the Minister, but about the rather dilatory Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis.
My hon. Friend stated:
The Commissioner of Police…tells me that the information requested is not held centrally.—[Official Report, 16 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 266W.]
That is not good enough. We have a right to know about those costs. One of my constituents has been suspended for more than three years, without any proceedings taking place. Such people are entitled to due process. Keith Green, a policeman, to whom I have referred before, was denied rights to which, like others, he is entitled under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Keith Pedder has had property seized, including the manuscript of a book on the Rachel Nickell murder inquiry. There is overwhelming evidence that the stewardship of that matter by the Commissioner is wholly unsatisfactory. I want an inquiry.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is well known for the commitment of his campaigning in relation to the Metropolitan police. His campaign of parliamentary questions has been entirely appropriate.
First, there has been a special inspectorate investigation into the Metropolitan police. My hon. Friend will have seen the report, which was published only a few months ago. The investigation raised serious matters of the sort to which he has referred. These issues are being addressed seriously by the Commissioner and by the Government, for exactly the reasons that my hon. Friend is implying.
Secondly, it is somewhat unfair to tar the Commissioner entirely with the brush of those issues. The Commissioner is personally committed to rooting out corruption in the Metropolitan police. Beyond that, he believes that it is critical that the process is carried through successfully if the people of London are to have trust in the Metropolitan police. That is the path that is being taken, and it is one that I wholeheartedly support.

Mr. John Greenway: Is it not clear from these exchanges that unless the changes that the Minister intends to bring forward address the problem of delay, they will not succeed? The inquiry held in Cleveland concerning Superintendent Mallon—a highly respected officer who has been praised by the Prime Minister—took longer than two years and cost several million pounds. Like the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I have constituents who are senior police officers who have been suspended for almost 18 months. No criminal prosecutions are to be brought, but internal disciplinary inquiries continue. Can the Minister give us some confidence, in the light of the KPMG reports, that the issue of delay will be addressed? The old adage that justice delayed is justice denied works both ways. There are many fine police officers now suspended who deserve justice.

Mr. Clarke: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. When I took up my portfolio at the end of July 1999 I tried to understand, but it is difficult to see how the process in so many cases could take so long. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that. That is why I am personally committed to driving through the reforms as rapidly as possible. That is necessary for everyone involved, including the police. The hon. Gentleman is a former police officer, and he is aware of the debilitating effects on police morale if inquiries hang around. I associate myself with his remarks.

Mr. Martin Linton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the two consultation papers are closely in line with the recommendations of the two Home Affairs Committee reports on disciplinary procedures and on training and recruitment? Is he aware also that the intention to have a larger independent element in the investigation of complaints against the police by people outside the police will be especially welcomed? However, I would not imagine that even my former colleagues in the press would expect such investigations to be conducted by journalists.
Is my hon. Friend also aware that there will be a big welcome for the concept of a central police college—which, I imagine, rather than handing out AS-levels in sociology, will put police training at the level of university degree courses, where it should be? I hope that in so doing my hon. Friend will encourage the involvement of universities, such as Portsmouth, in the provision of degree-level training for the police.

Mr. Clarke: I am second to none in my respect and admiration for the investigative qualities of journalists of


all types, and for the accuracy with which they report their conclusions. However, I share my hon. Friend's view that to rely on them as a core element in the independent police complaints system might be going just a step too far.
I shall respond seriously to the point about AS-level sociology. It is a weakness of the current training system that the various practitioners within the criminal justice system—lawyers, the police, and social workers, for example—are not trained together to anything like the extent that they need to be. An important element in the new training regime will be to establish practical training for people who will be working together, so that they understand relationships across the criminal justice system. The training will not be a theoretical schoolboy text on AS-level sociology. Instead, it will be practical training that will bring professions together so that the criminal justice system can deliver for everyone.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the Minister ensure that frivolous or malevolent complaints against the police are strongly dealt with? The police are undermined by that kind of unsubstantiated attack.
As a trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, may I emphasise my agreement that training across disciplines is absolutely indispensable? In the past, the police have been too much cut off from the rest of society. Given that prevention of cruelty to children is one of the prime targets of law and order, I hope that the Minister will employ widely the lessons learned from co-operation with the NSPCC.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support on the final point. He is well respected for his work in that field, and his support is important.
I agree, too, about frivolous or malevolent complaints. That is one reason why such matters need to be resolved rapidly. A judgment must be made, of course, about what is frivolous or malevolent, and that judgment is not always easy. However, it is important that the system should be more rapid than it is at present.

Mr. Marsha Singh: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on both fronts. The independent complaints authority that eventually results will improve and promote public confidence in the police, and will be welcomed by the police themselves.
We need first-class training for a first-class police service, but I should like to question the references to AS-level sociology. Our cities contain complex communities and it is important that different communities should see the police force as their own police force. If that is to happen, the police must understand communities and their sensitivities. Unless they do, we shall never reach the position in which everyone sees the police service as their own.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with both my hon. Friend's points. It is critically important that the police should have confidence in the system. From the conversations that I have had with police officers at all levels, I believe that he is right to say that the police believe that an independent system is necessary and will assist their relationships with the communities that they serve.
As for the point about sociology, I was not talking about the importance of the police understanding their communities, which is essential. I was, I suppose, implicitly criticising the idea that an AS-level sociology course might give the understanding that my hon. Friend rightly identifies as necessary.

Mr. Tony Baldry: If the Minister had been making a statement today on teaching, nursing or another public service, he would almost certainly have paid tribute to the service concerned. The House will have noted, and Hansard will show, that he has at no stage paid tribute to the police service. We shall not recruit men and women into the police unless they feel that it is a valid public service. Perhaps, instead of criticising the police whenever we speak, it is time that we collectively paid tribute to the outstanding public service of policemen and women, often in difficult, and sometimes in dangerous, circumstances. Unless we do so, we shall never persuade young men and women that the police is a profession and a public service worth entering.

Mr. Clarke: I find that an extraordinary remark. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I make it our business frequently to pay tribute to the work of the police. That we should do so is a canon of our existence. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps address his remarks to the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary, who have, in recent weeks, made it their business to undermine the police by attacks and criticisms—something that Labour Members absolutely do not do. I pay total tribute to the police; I simply wish that that was the case across the House.

Mr. Tony McWalter: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, but I ask him to consider two matters of concern. First, Members of Parliament often receive substantial allegations about the police. Can he assure me that the way in which we can deal with those complaints will be facilitated by the new system? In particular, will we be able to transmit allegations to the appropriate place without it seeming as if we either endorse them or regard them as vexatious?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the new arrangements will protect the police better against malevolent accusations? Some accusations can be co-ordinated, which makes them more plausible than a single, wild allegation.

Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks on his second point. Having an independent system will ensure that malevolent accusations can be eliminated and dealt with rapidly and effectively.
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about Members of Parliament, which I have discussed with the police. We all, in our constituency surgeries and elsewhere, receive complaints of various kinds. At present, the options open to us are fairly narrow. There is a case for passing complaints directly to an independent authority. We are considering that in the consultation paper, because it is an important means of ensuring that we carry out our duties effectively.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the Minister agree that towns such as Hinckley are examples of places in which the improvements should be most effective in


regional collaboration and joint training. Hinckley is the main town in my constituency, and lies not just on the edge of the Leicestershire authority area but on the county and regional boundary.
Does the Minister agree that there is a danger that some of the proposals might simply be cosmetic, given that mutual aid arrangements and an existing mechanism are already in place? Is he sure that these are new initiatives, not just existing arrangements that are being dressed up?
Does the Minister accept that the key issue, as seen in Hinckley, is police numbers? When we have problems on Friday night, with the night clubs turning out, mutual aid is often not available across the county boundary.
Does the Minister further accept that the previous Government went a long way towards improving the system of police complaints by getting rid of the Police Complaints Board and replacing it with the independent Police Complaints Authority? I do not think that he will want to ignore that fact.
Finally, I join the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who spoke on behalf of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in saying: is not information technology a cost-effective way of improving co-operation? Are not police forces notorious for following their own noses and having independent systems that cannot talk to each other?

Mr. Clarke: That is absolutely right. It has been a surprise to me, since I started doing this job, to find out how very different the IT systems are in the various police forces. Furthermore, the six criminal justice agencies—police, prisons, the probation service, the Crown courts, the magistrates courts and the Crown Prosecution Service—all have different systems as well, so ensuring coherence is fantastically important.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the proposals being cosmetic. Indeed, I do not think that he was really suggesting that. Our proposals contain major new elements. Co-operation between forces within regional boundaries will be driven by best-value considerations and a series of considerations of rationality. That is an active element in the discussion.
I agree that what the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others are most interested in is the number of bobbies on the beat. However, I do not think that that diminishes the importance of either of the two aspects of policing that I have announced today—complaints and training—in terms of the regard in which the police force is held by the people of this country.

Point of Order

Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that tomorrow morning the House will be asked to consider the part-time work regulations. Last Wednesday, on "Woman's Hour" on BBC Radio 4, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spelled out who the beneficiaries of that measure were likely to be. So inaccurate was his information that the following day a spokesman from the Trades Union Congress came on "Woman's Hour" to put the Secretary of State's inaccuracies right. People said, "Poor Mr. Byers, I think he must have fuddled his head because he's had a tough week." That is all very well, but is it not a contempt of the House that tomorrow we are being asked to consider legislation laid in the name of a Secretary of State who clearly does not understand it? May I, through you, Madam Speaker, ask whether the legislation could be deferred until it has been reviewed properly by the DTI, so that we know exactly what the Secretary of State's intentions are?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady will appreciate that the Speaker of the House does not determine the business programme. That is the responsibility of the Government in co-operation with the Opposition, and is considered through the usual channels. Perhaps I might refer the hon. Lady to the usual channels, where she may put her request for deferment.

Armed Forces (Minimum Age of Recruitment)

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the recruitment of persons under the age of eighteen into the regular forces, the regular air forces and the Royal Navy; to prohibit the calling up of members of the reserve forces who are under eighteen years of age; and for connected purposes.
It is estimated that, as I speak, at least 300,000 young people under the age of 18 are involved in armed conflict around the globe. In countries such as Uganda and Sierra Leone, children as young as 12 are forced into conscript armies. There is no greater betrayal of the rights of the child than to force that child to carry arms.
That is going on despite the fact that, in November of last year, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It is why, in January of this year, an intergovernmental working group agreed a draft optional protocol to that convention to deal specifically with the involvement of children in armed conflict. That protocol would prohibit conscription of those under 18 and require Governments to take all feasible measures to end the deployment of those under 18. If and when that optional protocol is ratified, significant steps in the right direction will have been taken.
Under-18s should not be conscripted, and it is right that their conscription should end. Neither should under-18s be deployed in the theatre of war, so it is also right that all feasible measures are taken to avoid such deployment. The most obvious of those feasible measures is simple: to prohibit the recruitment of under-18s at the outset.
That is not a radical idea; it is not even a novel idea. The minimum age of recruitment into the police force is 18 and a half. In August 1914, at the outbreak of the first world war, the minimum age of enlistment into the Regular Army was 18. Even when conscription was introduced in March 1916, the minimum age remained 18.
There were youngsters under that age who reached the front line, but they did so only if they lied about their age—men such as my grandfather, who joined up when he was 16 or 17 and was shot at 18, and my great-uncle, who had lost his leg by the age of 18.
If recruitment into the armed services below the age of 18 were thought neither right nor necessary at a time of such great peril as the first world war, how can it conceivably be thought right or necessary today? Yet, today, there are nearly 7,000 16 and 17-year-olds in the British armed forces. They are too young to vote and to share in the governance of the country; to be tried in an adult court; to drink in a pub; too young even freely to enter into a contract; but they are old enough to kill or be killed on our behalf. This Bill would prohibit their recruitment into armed services.
The first benefit of the Bill would be that it would save some young lives. Since 1982, more than 90 service personnel aged under 18 have died. It is not just in the theatre of war that these young people are at risk; 25 died in training accidents. That should not surprise us. Military exercises are designed, rightly, to simulate the situations that soldiers would expect to face in real military

operations. Their training inevitably involves firearms, weapons and explosives; dangerous activities, as the Ministry of Defence rightly and readily acknowledges.
Since 1992, 52 fatalities have occurred in the Army because of firearms. Any one of those could have been a young recruit, because accidents will and do happen, and are more likely to happen with younger recruits. We already know from the road traffic death statistics that young people tend to be less cautious than those who are older. Those young people should not be exposed to training which carries so high and so well-known an element of risk.
The second benefit of the Bill is that it would better protect the fundamental rights of those youngsters while they are alive. It has been recognised for many years that those under 18 require special protection. That is why they were protected by the Factory Acts of the 19th century, and why limitations have been developed upon their capacity to contract. It is why we have specific juvenile courts properly to deal with young offenders in ways appropriate to their age and why European Council directives give them better protection while they are at work. It is why we have the UN convention on the rights of the child.
Those are all measures that comprehend the fact that under-18s need special protection in certain areas. Yet there are inadequate comparable protections for under-18s in the armed forces.
A young adult can make up his mind swiftly and then change it on more mature reflection. That is one of the reasons why we have limits on the capacity to contract. However, once enlisted and after just six months, a young recruit is bound until his 22nd birthday. Although there are discretionary grounds for leaving, there is no discharge as of right. If that young recruit were asked to serve in an area of conflict, there would be no right to refuse. Outside the armed forces, a young person is relatively free to change his mind, but inside, that freedom is necessarily limited.
If that young recruit chose to leave, without permission, the grounds of the military base on which he was based, he would be detained and arrested. Outside the armed services, there are limits on the type of trial to which under-18s can be subjected, but that young recruit would be bound by three service discipline Acts, subject to a separate justice system and, within that system, subject to the same military courts as adults.
I do not believe that that is right. I believe that the best way to resolve the tension that exists between the obvious need for firm discipline within the armed services and the rights of a young person is to prevent that young person from being recruited until he reaches the age of majority. The second benefit of the Bill would therefore be that it would respect the fundamental rights of those under 18 but would not prejudice military discipline.
Indeed, far from prejudicing the armed services, the third benefit of the Bill is that it would positively advantage them. Current UN practice is that troops used for peacekeeping are required to be a minimum of 18, and, ideally, should be over 21. That is because of the skill, experience, patience and discretion needed to do the vital jobs that the armed forces perform on our behalf.
Raising the age of recruitment to 18 would reflect that, bringing the UK into line with the United Nations. Those who are recruited into the armed services in our country would be of the age and maturity necessary properly and better to perform the vital tasks that we ask of them.
I understand that there are those who are concerned about the Bill, and I respect their concerns. The first concern is that a gap might be created for those youngsters who are committed to a career in the armed services from a young age, who want to pursue it as soon as they can and who may benefit from the special opportunities provided. That is why nothing in my Bill would prejudice the Territorial Army, impact upon cadets or prevent the establishment of specialist military colleges for 16 or 17-year-olds outside the regular armed services. That would enable youngsters to join up on reaching the age of majority but with the benefit of appropriately focused training given within a mature military culture. Their choice would be an informed one and their talents would already be developed.
The second concern is that the Bill might overstretch the armed services. I understand that concern but, if there is overstretch, the answer is not to rely on 16 or 17-year-olds but to recruit appropriate numbers of people of the right age and maturity. That is why the Bill would not come into force for two years and why it vests in the Secretary of State all appropriate transitional arrangements.
The Bill would prohibit the recruitment into the armed forces of those below 18. It would ensure that the highest human rights standards are honoured in this country. It would ensure that the United Kingdom can not only ratify the protocol but take a lead in the country and the world. We would then have leverage in places such as Uganda and Sierra Leone to strive for better standards across the globe. However, the Bill would not prejudice the security of this country. It would not prejudice the professionalism of our armed forces or deny the rights of any of our young adults to chose to serve our country as they wish. For all those reasons, I hope that the House will allow me to introduce my Bill.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) has made a decent, well-argued and, I am sure, well-intentioned speech. The House may well miss him after the general election. Notwithstanding the good intentions—which, incidentally, pave the road to hell—he is entirely wrong.
This is muddled political correctness. The hon. Gentleman said that training for the Army is dangerous. The first thing that one must understand is that, in the armed forces, one is being trained to go to war, and whatever else it may be, war is extremely unpleasant and dangerous.
Sierra Leone and the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda were mentioned. I am not sure whether the two little boys in Burma were mentioned. British young soldiers, sailors and air crew have absolutely nothing to do with those conflicts. For a start, there is no conscription. All 16 and 17-year-olds—and indeed all other service personnel—are volunteers.
The 16 and 17-year-olds whom I remember were keen and determined. They desperately wanted to be soldiers. When we went to Northern Ireland, we could not let them go out on the streets. They had to remain behind, guarding the barracks. They hated it. They desperately wanted to get out there and do something useful. There are severe limitations on what they can do, and that is right. They are not put on the streets in Northern Ireland and they will not be deployed on United Nations tours.
The hon. Gentleman said that some young people in the forces have been killed, but people are killed in road accidents, too. As he admitted, they are not put in danger if it can be avoided. [Interruption.] There are approximately 6,500 16 and 17-year-olds being trained in the forces, with the vast majority in the Army. They are engaged in training and education. One might regard it as a military college of further education.[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is wittering away over there, might care to go to the Army foundation college in Harrogate, where young men and women are doing foundation courses—studying for national vocational qualifications and the like—and deriving benefit for the future. They give enormous value to the armed forces. Such people serve longer and have a longer return of service, as it is called, so there is a better return on the large investment that is put into training. Much of it is complex, technical training, which many of us would find pretty difficult. The country needs a return on its investment, and that is what it gets from keen young volunteers.
The Army is now shifting the balance of recruitment from adults to juniors, because of the enormous competition for recruits for jobs created by a buoyant economy. There are tremendous demands for people to go into tertiary or further education, and that is competing for young people from 16 to 18. When they reach 18, they are often already in tertiary or further education and are lost to the Army.
What is the purpose of the Bill? The hon. Gentleman said that it was to set a good example. I have seen the photographs of boy soldiers in Sierra Leone and elsewhere. It is disgusting. We will not set a good example to Sierra Leone by not recruiting 16 and 17-year-olds. We will do it by sending out first-class troops to establish some order and help the people there.[Interruption.] I am sorry that I cannot allow the hon. Member for Slough to intervene.
What is the purpose of the armed forces? This is the root of the whole issue. The purpose of the armed forces is to defend the realm—to defend all of us in the House. The hon. Gentleman dismissed overstretch and under-recruitment, but solving those problems is terribly important. We cannot send troops to Sierra Leone or anywhere else if we do not have them. Let the armed forces defend the realm.
We are not breaking the 1989 UN convention on the child, or indeed the protocol that is being introduced this year, which still allows the recruitment of volunteers of 16 and 17. We must ask whether we want excellent, well-recruited armed forces or whether we do not. That is the question.
The armed forces feel much undermined by the politically correct stand of the Government. Labour Members will deny that, but it is true. The authority of military discipline is being undermined. A small point: allowing people to be openly homosexual in the armed forces is undermining military discipline, however much people deny it. The hon. Gentleman referred to special protection for 16 and 17-year-olds. I have not checked the record, but I bet that he voted to remove the special protection for them as regards homosexuality. Homosexual sexual intercourse, whatever else it might do, certainly might harm the people involved. The Bill would prevent them from joining up and doing something useful and honourable. That shows strange priorities.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 69

Division No. 199]
[4.25 pm


AYES


Alexander, Douglas
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Allan, Richard
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ashton, Joe
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Atkins, Charlotte
Lepper, David


Austin, John
Linton, Martin


Barnes, Harry
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Bennett, Andrew F
McDonnell, John


Best, Harold
McFall, John


Brand, Dr Peter
Mackinlay, Andrew


Butler, Mrs Christine
McNamara, Kevin


Cann, Jamie
Mactaggart, Fiona


Cawsey, Ian
McWalter, Tony


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Chaytor, David
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Clapham, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Colman, Tony
Maxton, John


Corbett, Robin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mitchell, Austin


Crausby, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Mountford, Kali


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Norris, Dan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Davidson, Ian
O'Hara, Eddie


Dawson, Hilton
Olner, Bill


Dean, Mrs Janet
Palmer, Dr Nick


Dismore, Andrew
Pike, Peter L


Donohoe, Brian H
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Quinn, Lawrie


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Flynn, Paul
Rooney, Terry


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Gerrard, Neil
Savidge, Malcolm


Gibson, Dr Ian
Sawford, Phil


Godman, Dr Norman A
Sedgemore, Brian


Godsiff, Roger
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Shipley, Ms Debra


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Skinner, Dennis


Gunnell, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe  Lunesdale)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)



Hinchliffe, David
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Hopkins, Kelvin
Steinberg, Gerry


Hurst, Alan
Stevenson, George


Iddon, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Illsley, Eric
Stinchcombe, Paul


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Vis, Dr Rudi


Khabra, Piara S
White, Brian


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)





Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Ms Julia Drown and


Wyatt, Derek
Mr. Marsha Singh.


NOES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Keetch, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye  Inverness W)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Key, Robert


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bercow, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Boswell, Tim
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brake, Tom
Livsey, Richard


Brazier, Julian
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Burnett, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Moore, Michael



Moss, Malcolm


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Öpik, Lembit


Chope, Christopher
Plaskitt, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Randall, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Robathan, Andrew



Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Dalyell, Tam
Sanders, Adrian


Day, Stephen
Shaw, Jonathan


Drew, David
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Soames, Nicholas


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Squire, Ms Rachel


Fabricant, Michael
Stunell, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Tapsell, Sir Peter


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Harris, Dr Evan
Tyler, Paul


Hayes, John
Walter, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton  Frome)
Ward, Ms Claire


Hepburn, Stephen
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hoyle, Lindsay



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. David Maclean and


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Edward Leigh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Stinchcombe, Mr. Marsha Singh, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Kerry Pollard, Mr. Michael Jabez Foster, Mr. Fraser Kemp, Ms Oona King, Ms Julie Morgan, Dr. Lynne Jones, Valerie Davey, Ms Julia Drown and Dr. Brian Iddon.

ARMED FORCES (MINIMUM AGE OF RECRUITMENT)

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the recruitment of persons under the age of eighteen into the regular forces, the regular air forces and the Royal Navy; to prohibit the calling up of members of the reserve forces who are under eighteen years of age; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 127].

Orders of the Day — Royal Parks (Trading) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 2

MAXIMUM PENALTY

Mr. Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 13, leave out "level" and insert—
for the first offence level 2 on the standard scale, and for any subsequent offence level".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out "3" and insert "2".

Mr. Forth: The amendment relates to the important question of fines to be imposed on those who commit offences of the nature described in the Bill. I seek to introduce the time-honoured system of imposing different levels of penalty for first and for subsequent offences.
I was at least partly inspired by what the Minister said in the Second Reading Committee—the rather unusual device that is deployed when a Bill has not yet been debated on the Floor of the House. I welcome this first opportunity to air the important issues that it raises here, on the Floor, as hitherto it has been dealt with only in Committee—a perfectly proper procedure, I hasten to add, but one that means, regrettably, that Members who were not on the Second Reading Committee or involved in the Committee stage have not yet had an opportunity to address themselves to the Bill.
On 7 March 2000, in that Second Reading Committee, the Minister said:
fines, however frequently imposed by the courts, do not, as things are, act as an effective deterrent when compared with the income that can be gained from illegal trading.—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 7 March 2000; c. 4.]
In a moment, I should like to return to the subject of income, but first it might help the House if I were to remind hon. Members of the origins of the matter. The section of the Bill to which the amendment applies makes reference to the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926, in which the matter was dealt with, although not originally. In a moment, I shall refer back to the Parks Regulation Act 1872, in which the concept of fines made its first appearance.
Suffice it to say that section 2(1) of the 1926 Act stated:
if any person fails to comply with, or acts in contravention of, any regulations so made—
which are regulations relating to the parks—
he shall be guilty of an offence against the principal Act and shall be liable on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.

We therefore know that the level of penalty that was fixed in 1926 was five pounds.
Subsequently, when I looked at the 1872 Act—which was updated in the 1926 Act—rather to my surprise I found in section 4 the provision:
If any person does any act in contravention of any regulation contained in the first schedule annexed hereto, he shall, on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction, be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.
That is an interesting illustration of the fact that between 1872 and 1926 there was so little inflation that it was not deemed necessary to increase the level of penalty.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: In fact, in the late 1870s and early 1880s there was significant deflation.

Mr. Forth: That is helpful—it explains what otherwise, to me, seemed to be a bit of a mystery.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Of course, an alternative explanation is that there was not the same scale of offences, and that the original fine had proved to be a sufficient deterrent. However, it might be for the convenience of the House—so that we might be better informed—if my right hon. Friend were able, looking at the same Act, to tell us the approximate value, in current terms, of £5 in 1872.

Mr. Forth: I had rather hoped that my hon. Friend would not ask me that question because I should have to guess, and I do not want to have to get involved in guessing. However, I suspect that if any hon. Member were to nip into the Library while I am speaking, he or she could probably find a pretty good answer and come back to inform us.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: May I help the right hon. Gentleman? The general ratio—it varies with the various circumstances that one makes use of—for pre-war to current prices is about 40:1.

Mr. Forth: That is very helpful indeed. It neatly places a £5 fine in 1872 at level 1 on the current scale. That gives us a very good basis on which to consider—as I shall in a moment—the proposals that I am making in amendment No. 17 on levels 2 and 3. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose intervention has been extraordinarily—but not unusually—helpful.

Mr. John Bercow: I agree that what the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has just told the House is helpful. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to establish whether the fact of no change in the level of fine in that 54-year period was due to no inflation, or whether it was due principally to there being no substantial increase in the annual level of offending?

Mr. Forth: That is indeed a perfectly possible explanation. I think that we shall come on later—perhaps not in this debate, but on a subsequent group, and certainly on Third Reading—to consider the nature of the


trade, which has given rise to the Bill, and of those who are alleged to be carrying out that trade. That will be quite an important consideration when we come to that stage.

Mr. David Maclean: Bearing in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the general level of offending, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of all the Home Office research, done under various Governments, showing that since 1945 the average annual increase in criminal offending has ranged between about 4.5 to 5 per cent. It is therefore not the case that there has not been an increase in offending: since 1945, there has been a general average increase of 5 per cent. per annum.

Mr. Forth: Unusually, that intervention was not as helpful as I have come to expect from my right hon. Friend. We were considering the period between 1872 and 1926, and he has suddenly tried to rush me forward to 1945. I shall forgive him, but on this occasion I shall discount what he has said.
Lest it has escaped the attention of the House, I wanted to remark in passing that section (5) of the 1872 Act makes an interesting reference:
Any park keeper in uniform, and any persons whom he may call to his assistance, may take into custody, without a warrant, any offender who in the park where such a keeper has jurisdiction, and within the view of such keeper, acts in contravention of any of the said regulations.
As early as 1872, the provisions were widely drawn. One can easily trace the genesis of the Bill from 1872 through 1926 and, I think, 1997. We will not necessarily debate the powers available, although we may want to reflect on them. I am sure that the Minister will help us later, but I remain to be satisfied that the police and the park employees use to the full all the powers available to them. We should be satisfied of that before we leap to bring in the draconian provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Sheldon: I walk across a royal park most days and there is a horrible smell of stale fat. That is disgraceful in a royal park and outside Buckingham palace. The police say that they have acted again and again, but that they are wasting their time because they keep having to go to court. They have given up. Anybody who respects our royal parks and our main palaces and places of interest, which people come from all over the country and the world to visit, should want us to maintain the highest standards that we have been able to provide.

Mr. Forth: That is an elegant statement of the aspirations behind the Bill and it is typical of the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not fully explain why we need the Bill. Just this morning, I took myself down to the London Eye on the embankment south of the river. We have been told again and again that the aim of the Bill is to replicate within the royal parks the excellent powers already available to the police outside them. I gather that that is one of the main arguments, although I have not yet heard it because the Bill has not yet been considered on the Floor of the House. To my astonishment, I counted four hot-dog purveyors within 200 yd of the London Eye.
That gave me pause for thought. If the existing powers are so wonderful and effective that we are seeking to replicate them in the royal parks, why did I find four hamburger purveyors, with customers crowding round them? I saw them making purchases and munching happily. I did not see anyone falling to the ground. I hope that that point will be answered, because we have to tease out these issues before the House rushes to pass such draconian legislation.

Mr. John Greenway: Probably, there were not enough police officers on duty to use the powers available to them to deal with the hot-dog stands to which my right hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Forth: I am aware that the number of police officers in the Metropolitan area—I think that we shall have to call it something different from July—has fallen dramatically. That partly explains the phenomenon I have described, but it gives rise to another question. Were we to grant the powers in the Bill, would there be sufficient police officers to implement and enforce them effectively in the royal parks? If it cannot be done around the London Eye, why should we be satisfied that it could be done in the royal parks? As well as asking about the powers, we should ask whether the enforcement will match them. The Minister may have to answer that question subsequently.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my right hon. and erudite Friend for giving way, as is his custom. Was he not rather concerned by the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who seemed to suggest that one of the main reasons for the Bill was the disgusting smell of fast food pervading some of the finer parts of London?
The logic of that would suggest that one would need huge draconian legislation, applying not just to royal parks but to all the other establishments from which the smell of fast food—or not so fast food—may emanate into public thoroughfares and cause distress to foreign tourists. That is what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting.

Mr. Forth: Indeed. We may have to consider the implications of slow food at some point, but I shall leave that to others as I do not want to prevail on the patience of the House.

Mr. Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: Is it on slow food?

Mr. Swayne: I have never found the smell of fast or slow food unappealing, but I would not wish to tempt my right hon. Friend further down that road. I simply suggest that the issue potentially negates the very reason for his amendment, because it matters not where one is on the scale of offences if the provisions are not enforced.

Mr. Forth: That is a helpful point to which we shall return; however, I do not want to be deflected from the main thrust of my argument.
Before turning to the level of penalties, which is the substance of my amendment, let me add one final point about the 1872 Act, which is germane to the discussion. Section 8 states:
Every police constable belonging to the police force of the district in which any park, garden or possession to which this Act applies is situated shall have the powers, privileges, and immunities of a park-keeper within such park, garden or possession.
I add those thoughts to set the scene for the debate that we may have subsequently about the relative powers that the police enjoy inside and outside the parks, which have been so important to the argument that we have not yet had on the Floor of the House because the Bill was hidden away in Committee. We should therefore have the opportunity of exploring it—briefly, perhaps—in the context of subsequent groups of amendments.
Returning to the substance of the amendment, I hope to persuade the House and the Minister that instead of having one single penalty level, we should have what I think has become much more widespread practice—although my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) may be able to help me on this—and introduce one penalty for a first offence and a higher penalty for subsequent offences.
I understand the feelings about the Bill, as just this morning I spoke to a councillor on Westminster city council who left me in no doubt of the anxiety of that council to ensure that the problem in the royal parks was addressed. I reassured her that I did not want to stand in the way of the Bill, but insisted that it had to be properly examined, and that is exactly what we are doing now.

Mr. Fallon: In proposing to the House that the penalty should increase with the number of offences, has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the fact that the policy might be characterised as "Three fries and you're out"?

Mr. Forth: It would be unwise of me to attempt to compete with that.
We are not just talking about the relationship between the level of the penalties for a first offence and for subsequent offence, but are linking that with the words that the Minister used on Second Reading, when he said that
fines, however frequently imposed by the courts, do not, as things are, act as an effective deterrent when compared with the income that can be gained from illegal trading.—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 7 March 2000; c. 4.]
The mystery is that nowhere in the very brief proceedings on Second Reading, which lasted 43 minutes in total, or those in Standing Committee, which lasted 35 minutes in total, could I find any discussion about the income levels that it is believed these traders enjoy, if that is the right word.
In most legislation, one attempts to relate the levels of penalties to the nature of the offence—the House will have to decide whether an offensive odour from a hamburger is a serious offence or a less serious one—and to the spoils arising from the activity. Until we know much more about the income—to which the Minister referred in passing, but never in detail—that the traders accrue from their activity, it will be difficult for us to come to a conclusion about the penalties. I assume that there must be some relativity or proportionality between income and penalties, unless the House temporarily takes

leave of its senses, gets carried away on a tide of emotion—understandable, perhaps—and determines that the offences are so heinous, so ghastly and so unacceptable that they must be dealt with in a peremptory and draconian way.
I am tempted, although I am probably not the person to do it—perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border will help us later—to consider the penalties for other crimes such as violence, theft and the like, and set them in context against the penalties proposed for the generation of offensive odours. We could then see whether there was some proportionality.
Not enough has yet been said. In a total of 43 minutes of Second Reading and 35 minutes of Committee proceedings, how could the House have had an opportunity properly to examine the relationship and the proportionality between the proposed penalties and the offences that are being committed? I say "committed", although I could have said "alleged". I believe that we have considerable evidence of the offences, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has just told us that in his daily perambulations in the royal park he experiences odours which he finds overwhelmingly offensive. The matter must be dealt with.
My amendment No. 17 is not quite the same as my right hon. Friend's amendment No. 1, but in both cases we want to focus the attention of the House on the matter of penalties. I should like to hear more from the Minister about what he knows about the vendors' takings or earnings, to see whether a relationship can be established between the proposed fines and what they are earning from the hapless tourists, who apparently are all too happy to avail themselves of the service provided by these people. Let us not forget that those traders would not continue to do what they are doing if there was no market for their product.

Mr. Bercow: It would appear that not only do we lack perfect information of the kind that Kant would have thought necessary for a successful debate, but we lack much information. Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the supporters of the Bill has declared that hot-dog sellers are a nuisance? Does my right hon. Gentleman agree that if it turned out that those traders were doing substantial business—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep to the amendment.

Mr. Forth: I shall try to refer elliptically to my hon. Friend's remarks. The four hot-dog purveyors whom I saw this morning in the area of the London Eye—a very successful and attractive item—appeared to be trading successfully with customers, and had apparently not yet been subject to any fines, at least not sufficient fines or penalties to deter them.

Mr. Swayne: But are the activities of the four vendors whom my right hon. Friend saw illegal?

Mr. Forth: I am told, and the Minister may be able to help—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is doing very well with his amendment and has kept in good order, but whether or not people outside were acting illegally is not a matter for us to consider. We must concentrate on the amendment before us and the changes that it would make to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the vendors, in passing. We know that there are four of them out there, and we know what they sell and what people buy from them, so we do not need any more detail on that matter.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends are keen to interrogate me, but I need your protection, vulnerable as I am. I hope that they will accept your guidance.
I am coming to the conclusion of my brief remarks.

Mr. Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

5 pm

Mr. Forth: I will, but I hope that my hon. Friend's point is relevant.

Mr. Swayne: I believe that it is. I follow my right hon. Friend's logic, and he is making a powerful case, but I have a difficulty in principle with the amendment. Reducing the punishment for the first offence sends a powerful signal, but dealing effectively with first offences will mean that there will be no subsequent offences. That is known currently as zero tolerance. Is not the amendment offensive to the public desire for zero tolerance?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend hits me on a vulnerable spot. That is why I said a moment ago that I was grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I still believe in capital punishment, although I did not seek to include such a provision in the Bill. I believe that harsh penalties are desirable, but my argument in this case is different. I am sure that the Minister is a modernist to his fingertips, and the more modern approach is to introduce an escalation in the penalties available. The penalty for the first offence would therefore be relatively low, but the penalties would escalate for subsequent offences.
I understand that my hon. Friend may want to argue differently, as may my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, but I hope that I have at least set the scene and posed the important questions. I hope also that the Minister will tell the House how he sees the relationships between the trade, the income accruing to traders, and the penalties that he believes will be effective.
A further matter is crucial to the question of penalties. If the Minister cannot satisfy us that the police will be able to apprehend traders under the provisions of the Bill, there is little point in a discussion of appropriate penalties, as no penalties will be imposed if wrongdoers are not caught. The Bill wants to apply the legal framework that obtains outside royal parks to people who trade within such parks. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell the House how it is that people outside royal parks will be able to trade freely, while those inside the parks will not.
A series of interconnected questions are implied by this apparently innocent amendment. They must be answered before we move on.

Mr. Maclean: I approach the question of the fine level from an angle that is slightly different from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I appreciate the argument that a lower fine might be acceptable for a first offence than for subsequent offences. My right hon. Friend advanced a powerful case for that principle, but because we do not know what the consequences of any fine will be, it is difficult to know whether the fine should be set at level 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.

Mr. Swayne: For those of us who are not familiar with criminal activity and who therefore have not memorised the scale of fines, will my right hon. Friend spell out what the levels of fine would mean to the ordinary vendor?

Mr. Maclean: I was going to set out the consequences in cash terms of the various standard fine levels, but I hope that I will not be out of order if I challenge my hon. Friend's statement that he has not come into contact with the criminal law. I seem to remember hearing him tell the House one Friday that he had once been thrown out of a public house and arrested because it had been alleged that he looked too young. Apparently, he was cleared because although he looked excessively young, he was old enough to be there. Nevertheless I trust that that was his only experience of the criminal law.
Amendment No. 1 would substitute for level 3, which carries a fine of £1,000, level 2 which carries a fine of £500. The Bill would delete level 1, which carries a fine of £200—it would replace a fine of £200 with one of £1,000. That increase is a little excessive and I recommend a maximum fine of £500 as an alternative. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would increase the fine from £200 to £500 for a first offence and up to £1,000 for a subsequent offence.
I have outlined the main point that we have to consider when we examine the amendments. At least, it is the main point until we consider the fundamental question whether the penalties are at appropriate levels, bearing in mind the income of the perpetrators of the offences. My right hon. Friend reminded the House of that. It is alleged that beggars on the streets of London—we will not discuss their nationality; we went down that route a few years ago—can make £200 or £300 a day if they are in the right spot and bring the right sort of children or dogs with them. Current penalties for beggars or vagrants are inadequate because those people's income is infinitely greater than the penalties they incur if they face court and the rigours of the law.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Has my right hon. Friend any information about the number of occasions on which the maximum permissible fine is imposed by magistrates under the current system?

Mr. Maclean: That is a valid question. It is highly unusual for the maximum penalty to be imposed in any circumstances—for first, second or even subsequent offences. Before a magistrates court imposes a maximum sentence, it has to be satisfied about the financial worth of the relevant individual and the gravity of the offence.
For the benefit of the House, I have brought a copy of Anthony and Berryman' s "Magistrates' Court Guide 2000". The section that refers to sentencing principles for


the magistrates court, especially the paragraph that relates to determining the amount of a fine, is relevant. However, it would be premature to pursue that in my opening remarks. My hon. Friend has led me further ahead than I wish to be at this stage.
Before we can determine the maximum penalties, we must have some idea of the level of the criminality and the nature and extent of the profit that the alleged criminals make. We did not have the benefit of Second Reading because the Government played the trick of convening a Second Reading Committee. It would have been a simple matter to arrange a debate of two or three hours on the Floor of the House—a proper Second Reading, which Bills normally receive. That would have saved us exploring the issues now in the amendments that we had to table.
We need to know roughly the income of the offenders and to ascertain the inadequacy of the current criminal law. We have read in newspapers general allegations that parks police do not find it worth while to prosecute offenders because when offenders are taken to court the penalty is apparently inadequate and they are back on the street the same afternoon or the next day, carrying on their trade and making more money.
I have heard that said and I have read it. I have not received any briefing notes from the parks police or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to confirm that it is a problem; but if it is and if people are going through the courts on a revolving door basis—paying an inadequate fine and trading again the next day—the House is right to deal with it and the Minister is right to build that provision into the Bill so that we can determine the appropriate level of fine and the confiscation provisions. We will debate those provisions later.
We are determining what are the appropriate sanctions to be imposed on individuals. The Bill has a twin-track approach: there is a fine or penalty in court and there is confiscation of equipment or non-perishable assets.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is seeking to establish a link between the scale of the fines and the gravity of the offence—this is intellectually relevant. I wonder whether he can clarify for the benefit of the House whether he thinks that the principle determinant of the gravity of the offence is the extent of the profits or the potency, on a third offence, of the smell.

Mr. Maclean: It is difficult for me to answer that question. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has said that one of the principal purposes of the Bill is to deal with offensive smells coming from hamburger or hot-dog stalls, and that view has been confirmed in some of the things that I have read or that have been said about the legislation. If that is the case, one can deal with the bad odour. If, on the other hand, the real problem is that these people are making an awful lot of money unscrupulously, illegally or without a licence, we may have to look at a different range of penalties and offences.
I suggest, Mr. Martin, that if odour is the problem and we do not want people to commit the offence again, the confiscation provisions become slightly more relevant. On the other hand, if the problem is the fact that people are making excessive profits—however the Government may

determine that—or illegal profits by trading in one of the royal parks without a proper licence, and you will be aware, Mr. Martin, that there is nothing to stop one trading in a royal park—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that it is normal to address the Chair as Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Maclean: I am rightly chided, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For some reason, I assumed that we were in Committee—a totally wrong assumption. Of course you are Mr. Deputy Speaker and, if I may say so without sounding sycophantic, a good one at that. We always enjoy your presence in the Chair, in particular on Fridays when you show remarkable patience and tolerance.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that because the Committee stage lasted only 35 minutes, he may well have missed it altogether and thought that this was it?

Mr. Maclean: That is a probable and plausible explanation for my getting your designation inappropriately wrong on this occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will have to do a suitable penance.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way as I fear that he is becoming too sycophantic towards you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I wish to protect him from that fate.
In dealing with the level of fines, my right hon. Friend posed the question, "What is the income of these traders?" Will he deal with this matter? I understand that this measure has been brought before us in part because, under the City of Westminster Act 1999, the fine was increased, which drove traders from that part of the metropolis into the royal parks where the fine was rather less. Perhaps the income of these people is such that they cannot sustain a £1,000 fine but they can sustain one of £200.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point; he may be right. I assume that the Minister will argue that one of the reasons for the legislation and why the proposed fines are appropriate is that they match other legislation on areas other than the royal parks, so as to ensure that traders or vendors do not find an easy loophole in the law. For example, they might be fined £1,000 if they were trading on Millbank pavement, but only £200 if they nip into one of the royal parks. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of my hon. Friends suggested that my penalty for getting your designation wrong should be at level 3 on the standard scale, or that I should be compulsorily fed a hot dog or a hamburger. Some might allege that that was the greater penalty.
The point that I was making before my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) intervened was that we must determine which provisions are to apply—whether the fines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst or by me or those proposed in the Bill are the most appropriate to deal with the alleged mischief. There are already two theories, but they are only theories. The Minister can no doubt expatiate and explain exactly what the mischief is—is it


the offensive smell, or the fact that people are ripping off tourists or trading illegally in the parks and making a profit?
The discussion so far has been about hot dogs, hamburgers and food stalls. However, that is not the only form of trading in the parks on which DETR wants to crack down. I have read that other sales take place. One is told about Rolex watches at £1.50 or Chanel No. 5 perfume at 50p a bottle—the smell of that perfume may be even more offensive than that of hot dogs or hamburgers. Such goods are regularly sold from suitcases on Regent street or Oxford street.
If people are selling goods that are not food or perishables and are not in themselves creating an unpleasant odour—offending the sensitive nostrils of the residents of Kensington and Chelsea and residents near other royal parks, whose nostrils the House should wisely defend on all occasions—we need to know about it. In those circumstances, the financial penalties may need to be greater than the Minister suggested. The profits of those traders may be even greater.
On the other hand, we may not need the confiscation provisions—to which I merely allude in passing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they occur in another part of the Bill. Those provisions would certainly deal with the smell problem. The items would be taken away and the traders could not use them again. However, we do not need to confiscate goods—the fake Rolex watches, or other cheap or counterfeit products—to deal with the problem of smell, so a financial penalty might be appropriate in such cases.
On the determination of the amount of any fine and the principles behind it, the House is asked to accept three options. The Minister's option is to delete the £200 fine and to hit everyone with a maximum penalty of £1,000. My right hon. Friend's suggestion is to delete the £200 and hit everyone with a £500 fine on the first offence, jacking it up to £1,000. My suggestion is that a maximum of £500 would be appropriate.
Anthony and Berryman advise that, in accordance with the sentencing principles of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the court must ensure that the penalty is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence for which it is imposed. Anthony and Berryman note that the court must assess carefully the gravity of the offence, having regard to the circumstances and to any mitigation. The court's assessment of the seriousness of the offence should then be reflected in the fine imposed.
That relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I do not have the magistrates courts sentencing guidelines with me, but no doubt the Minister will confirm that, under those guidelines, a fine is regarded as the least desirable option on many occasions. I think that the guidelines suggest searching for other options, including community sentences, rather than slapping fines on offenders who will not be able to pay. If an offender has difficulty paying, the easiest course is to ignore the fine and not pay it. The bad debt accumulates, the Lord Chancellor's office does not get the money and the law sinks further into disrepute. That is why the previous Government, this Government and earlier Labour Governments considered community sentences. I think that many Governments

have spent considerable time trying to find alternatives to fines and imprisonment. These options have included community sentences, which impose penalties that are likely to be put into effect.

Mr. Bercow: I do not want to prevent my right hon. Friend from proceeding with his argument, but there is still some uncertainty about the nature of the trade to which the graduated fines would apply. Is it the intention that they would apply to the sale of hamburgers and hot dogs and, for example, umbrellas, chestnuts, tee-shirts and baseball caps?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill's main provisions gives Ministers power to designate certain specified provisions of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 as park trading regulations. The Bill is all about creating a new and specific trading offence from existing trading regulations.
For the benefit of the House, I have a copy of the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, which are the most recent. Regulation 4 lists the acts in a park for which written permission is required. Although they would assist in the presentation of my argument, I shall not go through them because I think that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, activities prohibited in parks include cycling, noise, interfering with plants and fungus and treading on flowerbeds and shrubberies, for example.
I assume that the Minister will say that those examples are not trading offences. When the Minister introduces regulations after the Bill is enacted, I assume that he will have referred to regulation 4 and have selected specific references to trading offences. Regulation 4(6) refers to the carrying on of
any trade or business in a Park.
Regulation 4(3) refers to the operation of
a metal or mineral detector.
There is reference also to the organisation of or taking part in an assembly, display or performance. That may be a theatrical or artistic performance, which in a way may be trading.
We are considering a wide range of activities that is not confined to selling goods. I suspect that when DETR is producing a list of so-called trading offences to which the Bill will apply, it will not select only references to carrying on a trade or business. Instead, it will select some of the ancillary items that can also be regarded as trading offences that will be subject to a £1,000 penalty, including taking photographs of "still or moving subjects" as part of a professional activity by a body "corporate or unincorporate" or taking part
in any assembly, display, performance, representation…review or theatrical event.
These, too, could be park trading offences.
The House should ask itself whether these activities, including taking part in producing photographs for The House Magazine, should incur a £1,000 penalty. The House will be aware that many of us—well, some of us are less often involved now, thank goodness, since we are no longer in positions of any importance—including Ministers, are often invited by the media not only to College Green but into the royal park that is opposite 4 Millbank to participate in photographic experiences, shall


we say, and to be interviewed. That, according to my reading of the regulations, is illegal. If being interviewed by the BBC on a royal park is regarded as participation in a trade and is contrary to clause 1, a penalty of £1,000 could be imposed.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend could, if he had wished, have used the Royal Parks and Gardens Act 1872 to build on his argument, although I do not press him to do so. As far as I know, it has not been repealed, and it states:
No person shall drive or wheel into a park any vehicle, barrow, truck or machine not admitted therein by the rules of the park.
As long ago as 1872, many, if not most, of the activities that we are discussing would have been covered by the first schedule to that Act.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is, as usual, correct. The only difference is that the penalty specified in the 1872 Act and in the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926—extremely good reading, which I am sure you will wish to peruse once you have vacated the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—was £5. We have just heard from a distinguished parliamentarian, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, whom, as a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, we can expect to be able to do his sums, that the ratio to allow for inflation between pre-war legislation and that of today should be 40:1. The pre-war penalty of £5 should therefore be upgraded to £200, which, it so happens, it already is. Yet the Minister proposes to increase that penalty fivefold to £1,000. That may be the right amount to deal with the evil or mischief—whatever it may be—of offensive odour or offensive profit-making by person or persons unknown.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I apologise for not having heard the opening speeches. I was involved in a Greater London Authority statutory instrument Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). May I correct a misapprehension that these matters stem back to the 1872 Act? In fact, they go back to the Crown Lands Act 1702.
With regard to photography, is Parliament square considered to be a royal park? Recently, there was a dispute between the Metropolitan police and the parks police over those of us who visited Winnie the pig in her valiant fight for British pig farming. Was I committing an offence by going there?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those matters are not before us. Where parks are located has nothing to do with the narrow amendment before us.

Mr. Maclean: I was attempting to confine myself narrowly to the amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and was not going to be led slightly astray by my hon. Friend. I am slightly surprised that he has not studied the second schedule to the Royal Parks and Gardens Act 1872, which lists the royal parks. If he cares to reach behind him, I shall allow him to study it briefly in order to educate him in that regard. I can assure him that Parliament square is not, in fact, included.

Mr. Fallon: It may be for the convenience of my right hon. Friend if he notes that the second schedule to the

1872 Act, and indeed the first schedule, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred, were, sadly, repealed by the 1926 Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must keep the House to the amendments before us. The matters being raised may have something to do with the Bill, but we are currently debating the amendments tabled by the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful, as ever, for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to bring my remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am not clear whether I have sufficient information about what my right hon. Friend proposes. He is proposing a fine of £500. He talked about the income of rogue traders. Is there any evidence, from prosecutions under the City of Westminster Act 1999, about what level of fines was imposed? We know that there is a maximum fine of £1,000.
Perhaps the Bill should provide for variable fines, depending on which park was concerned. After all, those who trade in Richmond park will not be able to command the same fees for their burgers or ice creams as people trading in St. James's park, who have the whole Japanese and American tourist market available?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It brings me nicely back to sentencing principles, the point on which I wanted to conclude. If a person is found guilty before the court and the court is trying to assess, as the sentencing principles suggest, the gravity of the offence, having regard to the circumstances and to any mitigation, it will have to take into account where the offence was committed. Was it way out in Richmond park or was it in Hyde park or St. James's?
There is also a sentencing principle that states that the court must inquire into the offender's financial circumstances and ability to pay before setting the fine. That brings us back, fair and square, to the point before us. Should the fine be £200, £500 or £1,000 maximum? In some ways, it does not matter what the maximum is because the court cannot slap a maximum fine on anyone before it, willy-nilly. The court is under a duty; indeed, magistrates would be appealed immediately to a higher court if they attempted to impose a maximum fine without inquiring into the offender's financial circumstances and ability to pay.

Mr. Bercow: In proposing the graduated series of fines, has my right hon. Friend taken account of the fact that the Bill treats differently, or appears to treat differently, the vendors of different types of goods, given that there is a power to confiscate non-perishable goods but not perishable goods?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a reasonable time now. He must know that we are talking not about the Bill in its


entirety but about an amendment to it. The amendment deals not with confiscation but with fines, so any intervention needs to be about a fine.

Mr. Maclean: I hear my hon. Friend's point, and no doubt it is something that we will address when we debate the third group of amendments, which we will reach shortly.
Under the sentencing guidelines, the court will be able to take into account, when deciding the level of the fine, the fact that one person may have had all his equipment confiscated while another may have been sent home with bags of loose hamburgers and fried onions and therefore still has some assets. I am certain that his defence solicitors—if he has defence solicitors—will plead all those arguments. The main one will be, "You cannot impose this level of fine; it is far too high. My client does not have that sort of money.
"
Also, if there is an order before the court to confiscate equipment, which may be worth £1,000, £5,000 or tens of thousands of pounds, defence lawyers are bound to argue that if the court is to exercise its confiscation powers, it should impose a very low level of fine because anything else would be far too much for their poor client.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is very generous in giving way to me for a second time. In my earlier intervention I mentioned Parliament square, and he asked me to look at the Royal Parks and Gardens Act 1872. Apparently, Parliament square garden is considered to be a royal park. Therefore, would the proposals contained in amendment No. 17 apply to Parliament square?

Mr. Maclean: I assume that they would. I assume that when the Bill is enacted, the Government will produce regulations creating the trading offences. I have studied all the possible offences that could be designated as park trading offences. In addition to selling hamburgers or hot dogs, a whole range of other activities could be regarded as trading activities, including posing for photographs in the park if companies make money out of it, as the BBC and other organisations may do. A range of activities under regulation 4 of the 1997 regulations could be regarded as trading activities, in the widest possible sense. To ensure that the measure contains a catch-all for all trading offences, I suspect that parliamentary draftsmen will designate every one possible, and the penalty of £1,000—or £500, as I suggest—will apply.
In conclusion, unless the Minister convinces me otherwise, I think that jumping from a fine of £200 to one of £1,000, plus introducing, for the first time, the right to confiscate all equipment, is very draconian. A penalty of £500 would still be twice the rate of inflation. The much-respected right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggested that the fine should be only £200 if it were to keep pace with inflation since before the war. I am proposing a much higher penalty than the level of inflation would suggest, but the Government are demanding a very high one indeed.
We need to know why the Minister has reached that determination, how it has worked outside the parks in Westminster and what is the level of trading activity. Are we talking just about food and perishables, or is a whole

range of odd, assorted goods—perhaps of good quality—being sold as well as counterfeit ones? How does the Minister envisage confiscation working with regard to fines and penalties, and what will the effect be on the court? Only if we know the income that these people make from their activities and the extent of the mischief can we come to a proper, sensible determination about which of the amendments we should vote on today, or whether we should accept the Government's proposals.

Mr. Greenway: For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to state that the official Opposition support the Bill, which began as a private Member's Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
I remind right hon. and hon. Members that I have personal experience in these matters. As a police officer at West End Central, policing Soho and Mayfair in the 1960s, it was my privilege and duty to arrest many a hot-dog seller. I assure my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), who have tabled these amendments, that even in the 1960s it was not unusual for hot-dog sellers to have £100 or more in cash in their pockets when arrested. There has been much discussion about inflation since the 1920s. The result of inflation since the 1960s would mean that £100 then would be worth considerably in excess of £1,000 now.
I cannot agree that the level of fines in a Bill dealing with offences in the royal parks should be different from those in the legislation that deals with offences in the City of Westminster. Whether the level of fines is correct is a separate matter, and I have some sympathy with some of the comments that have been made on that subject.
Reference has been made to enforcement, and I pointed out earlier that the reason why several vendors were selling hot dogs within the vicinity of the London Eye this morning may have been that the police on duty had other things to do. However, inadequate policing is surely not a reason for failing to provide proper levels of penalty and sentence when offenders are caught and successfully prosecuted.
On the contrary, if the scale of offending is such that only a crackdown or blitz by police officers forsaking all their other duties would make any meaningful difference to the level of illegal trading, surely we should ensure that the courts have adequate powers to impose stiff penalties, to make that crackdown worth while. That must mean a combination of heavy fines and confiscation.

Mr. Chope: Will my hon. Friend deal with the argument about displacement? The London Eye is situated in the London borough of Lambeth. Does he agree that there may be so much activity there because fines there are lower than in the City of Westminster? How will that disparity be addressed by the Bill? Will not the Bill exacerbate it?

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has anticipated my next point. One of the difficulties created by the provisions in the City of Westminster is that they have displaced illegal trading from the streets into the royal parks. He rightly states that the south bank of the River Thames is in a different London borough. That in no way suggests that the House should not pass the Bill and


send it to the other House for consideration, but my hon. Friend's argument about the rest of London needs to be addressed by Ministers. Perhaps the matter could be drawn to the attention of the new mayor of London, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), and the newly elected Greater London Assembly.
The reason why the Minister and I are in the Chamber this afternoon is that the royal parks are under the jurisdiction, or departmental responsibility, of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Normally we would expect such issues to be considered by Home Office Ministers, or Ministers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I am sure that the Minister will draw the attention of his colleagues in those Departments to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
We require the Bill to deal with the displacement into the royal parks of illegal trading that was previously carried on within the city of Westminster. I suggest to right hon. and hon. Friends that the very fact that illegal trading appears now to have been displaced to the south bank adds fuel to our argument that we need to provide adequate protection for the royal parks.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has referred to the scale of allegedly objectionable activity in the royal parks. Can he tell the House how much less he would expect to accrue to public funds from the fines proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) than from those proposed by the Government?

Mr. Greenway: That is an interesting question, to which I have no answer. However, that is not the issue; the issue is whether the fines and the confiscation would be a deterrent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border asked about the scale of incomes. I have already alluded to my experience of 35 years ago, which suggested that those street traders made substantial incomes from their unlicensed sales. Obviously, they have no overheads and charge relatively high prices for relatively low-quality food or items; reference has been made to counterfeit goods being sold. For many, the fines that traders pay have traditionally been seen as being in lieu of the rent that they would have had to pay if they were trading from a recognised market or other premises.
The House needs no more evidence of the scale of income being derived from this already illegal activity than the widespread reports of Mafia control of the very people who are trading illegally within the royal parks. These so-called pitches are considered to be extremely valuable. My right hon. Friends are entirely right to ask the House to consider whether the penalties are correct, but it would be wrong for us to agree to an amendment which would reduce the level of fines permitted by the Bill. The courts will have flexibility, but in my judgment, the maximum should be higher.

Mr. Fabricant: I am intrigued by my hon. Friend's use of the word Mafia, and I am persuaded by much of his argument. Is he suggesting that there is an element of organised crime, or is it merely individual capitalism by the vendors?

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend puts his point with his usual eloquence. I think that organised crime is involved;

that advice has come from the Metropolitan police. There have been several incidents of violence, as the Minister has mentioned. We are not dealing simply with hot-dog sellers, but with organised crime and acts of violence that we should not tolerate within the royal parks. That is why this activity must be stamped out and brought under control by proper licensing. That is why the maximum penalties should be even higher.
However, we are perfectly content to trust the Minister's judgment. Clearly, it makes sense for the magistrates courts that deal with such matters—whether they are in the royal parks, the City of Westminster or the City of London—to have the same penalties available to them. I hope that on reflection, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Fallon: I shall be brief, because this is the Report stage.
The House faces an unenviable choice between the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and that tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst prefers a lesser penalty for the first offence. He described that as modernisation. I would call it sociology, but let us rest on that definition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border described his amendment as a compromise.
As true Conservatives, we are faced with a choice between modernisation or compromise. In reaching a decision, we should look a little more carefully at how to judge the effectiveness of the fines.
I hope that my right hon. Friends will forgive me if I say that it is all very well to criticise the Minister or the Bill for the lack of evidence on which the Minister's proposed fines are based, but I did not hear any countervailing evidence from them. I wonder whether my right hon. Friends based their amendments on discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers or the Magistrates Association, or whether they took evidence from representatives of the royal parks. It is crucial that the level of fine should be evidence based. I regret that I did not hear in either of their excellent speeches any greater evidence in support of the levels that they would prefer than we have heard so far from the Government. If the House is to spend prime time fixing penalty levels, we should do so on the basis of discussions with those at the sharp end, such as chief police officers, magistrates and so on.
The second criterion for judging the two interesting amendments is which is likely to be the most effective deterrent. Today's debate has been useful because it has raised the concept of displacement. Something that used to happen in the City of Westminster has been pushed into the royal parks because there is a different penalty there. It has also been pushed across the river to the south bank. If we get the level of fine right, the vendors might be driven to the millennium dome and drum up some custom for that attraction.
I am not convinced by the debate that any of the suggested fines will be a deterrent—and I am far less convinced when I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that the Mafia is involved. The idea that the Mafia will be deterred because the fine


has been increased from £200 to £1,000 does not bear serious examination, and would not bear serious examination on the streets of Palermo in Sicily. A mere £800 will not stop the violence of which my hon. Friend spoke. I need a lot more convincing about the right level for an effective deterrent.
If we want to drive this activity—or, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) described it, this smell—out of the royal parks, we must have an effective fine. However, I am tempted to conclude that all three of the suggested levels have been arrived at by simply making up a number. My right hon. Friends seem to think that the problem can be solved by increasing the level of the fine, but they are not sure that it will be an effective deterrent.

Mr. Bercow: I have always regarded my hon. Friend as a libertarian. Does he agree that if one were to argue for a much heavier fine than the Government or the Opposition are proposing, there would be a risk of arguing the doctrine that the ends justify the means and abandoning the notion of proportionality?

Mr. Fallon: I agree. I am not advocating a heavier level of fine than that already proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seems content with an increased level for the second and third offence. He may wish to return to that idea when he replies to the debate.
I am not advocating any particular level of fine. I need to know why the House is debating this Bill in the middle of the afternoon when there are so many other matters for which we are told there is no legislative time. It is for the Government to defend their chosen level. I am pointing out that the two alternatives do not seem, on first inspection, to be any more solidly evidence based than what is in the Bill.
The third criterion that might be useful is to consider the alternatives. As none of us has confidence in any particular level of fine, are we sure that we have considered all the alternatives? There may be more moderate punishments, such as some form of community service, which might take the vendors off the street.

Mr. Swayne: For the Mafia?

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) might be about to propose more serious penalties, which might involve the vendors never returning again.

Mr. Swayne: I am attracted by the idea of the Mafia being involved in purveying hamburgers. That is something that we should encourage. If the Mafia can be tied up in distributing hamburgers, society might be enhanced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is wide of the debate on the amendments.

Mr. Fallon: There is an absence of rationale here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we are to criticise the Bill for overreacting to a problem, or coming up with a solution that is not based on a particular rationale, we must be honest and apply that same critique to amendments Nos. 17 and 1.
I have said that this is a difficult and agonising choice for those of us who wish to support either or both of my right hon. Friends. However, when they reply to this important debate, it is incumbent on them to demonstrate that their amendments are better rooted in evidence and based on a more reasoned framework than the Bill that they seek to amend.

Mr. Chope: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) because I share some of his scepticism.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) have done a great service to the House and the country by ensuring that we have an opportunity to debate this matter. When speaking to clause 2 in Committee, the Minister justified the clause in just a few words. He said:
The current maximum penalty…carries a fine of £200. Magistrates courts generally impose much lower fines, but even the maximum fine of £200 is no deterrent. The courts need to have much higher penalties available to them.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 March 2000; c. 7.]
He did not explain why or how higher maximum penalties would deter that activity. The best deterrent is the certainty of conviction.
On Second Reading, the Minister said that those seeking to enforce the legislation in the royal parks were subject to strong-arm tactics and violence. In other words, offences were committed against them for which there are substantial penalties, including imprisonment. If the presence of those penalties on the statute book is not sufficient to deter this activity, why does the Minister think that a maximum fine of £1,000 might be?
6 pm
There is a real concern about this piecemeal legislation and the displacement effect. The Government argue that the Bill will equalise the royal parks with the City of Westminster, but those of us who, when we are in London, live on the south bank, as I do, in the London borough of Lambeth, will justifiably ask why the displacement should cause a proliferation of the illegal activity in our area. The Minister has not addressed that point.
Probably the best answer would be to have fixed penalties, decided by local authorities, just as they choose the level of parking fines. Fixed penalties and the certainty of conviction might be a much more effective deterrent than maximum penalties.

Mr. Fabricant: There is a powerful argument for fixed penalties. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to avoid displacement, they should apply equally to the royal parks and gardens as well as to places that do not come under the provisions of the 1872 Act?

Mr. Chope: That is a powerful point.
The Minister admitted in the Second Reading Committee that he had been
advised that interviews by the immigration and social security authorities have elicited that many of those operating these food carts say that they are asylum seekers.—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 7 March 2000; c. 5.]
That shows that the Government will never achieve their objective of reducing that illegal activity through the Bill.
I do not know whether the Minister has consulted the new chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality on whether he thinks that the legislation is discriminatory, but if those people are indeed asylum seekers, that further demonstrates the knock-on effects of the Government's inadequate asylum policies. Is it not unthinkable that maximum fines of £1,000 should be imposed on asylum seekers, who will justifiably be able to say that they have no source of income? How will the courts be able to impose £1,000 fines on asylum seekers, and how will asylum seekers be deterred from this unlawful activity by the provisions in clause 2?

Mr. Swayne: I do not yet know whether I am in favour of, or against, the amendments. That depends to some extent on what the Minister will say. I want briefly to rehearse my dilemma and to crystallise what has emerged. One has to decide which side of the fence to come down on. I want to rehearse the argument that has erected that fence for me.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) undermined the force of amendment No. 17 when he suggested that it might not be profitable to spend a great deal of time discussing the level of fines when those fines were unlikely to be enforced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) dismissed that argument with powerful logic, but both he and my right hon. Friend relied on one piece of evidence: the four traders next to the London Eye to whom they referred. The key point is that we might be doing those traders a huge disservice, because no one has yet produced any evidence to persuade us that they are trading illegally, yet they were used as the example to prove that the fines would not be enforced. Without that evidence, no such issue can be decided.
The thrust of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and those who followed his logic was that the fine had to be proportionate to the offence. If I understood him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) correctly, they did not believe that these offences were quite as heinous as some might portray them to be—reference was made earlier to the offensive smells that might emerge—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst therefore wanted to reduce the fine in respect of the first offence.
I understand the force of those arguments. These vendors do not force their products on unwilling customers. They provide a service. If it constitutes a nuisance, we must be proportionate in our response. That is one side of the fence—the argument for the amendments.
The argument against the amendments is the argument for zero tolerance—that the fines should be severe and there should be no reduction for the first offence on the

grounds that, if we deal severely with the first offence, there will not be subsequent offences. The argument is that, if one takes these issues seriously, one deals with the problem rather than having a running sore.
That might be countered by the proportionality argument—that it is ridiculous to deal with such trivial offences in so draconian a way—but the benefits of the zero tolerance approach are felt not in respect of those particular offences but in respect of all offences. The experience in New York is that dealing with minor offences such as street begging or illegal trading in a severe way has a knock-on effect on much more serious crime throughout the city. That is a powerful argument that we should consider.
However, I have at the back of my mind a reservation, which sprang from a telephone call that I received last week from a constituent, complaining that he had reported a burglar alarm ringing next door to him to the police, only to be told that it was the policy of the police in Ringwood not to respond to burglar alarms. Here we are, discussing additional fines to pursue the purveyors of hamburgers, and I wonder whether we have lost our sense of proportion.
I refer again to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, who suggested that the hamburger trade had been sewn up by the Mafia. It may bear repeating that if we could confine gangsterism to the purveyance of hamburgers, we would be doing very well indeed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Alan Howarth): I am happy to respond to the debate on the amendments. I am grateful to all who have participated. It is proper that we should debate the proposals in the spirit of satisfying Parliament that the legislation proposed by the Government is necessary, well framed, proportionate—that has been mentioned several times—and therefore fit to proceed speedily on to the statute book. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are increasingly satisfied that that will be the case.
The Bill has been considered carefully by Opposition Front Benchers, and I place on record my appreciation of the responsible attitude of the hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). I assure those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have cast a scintilla of doubt on whether Parliament's scrutiny of the measure has so far been adequate that I have been subjected to a rigorous and searching interrogation—more importantly, so has the legislation—by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady. None the less, it is appropriate to proceed as we are this afternoon, and I shall address myself to the amendments. In so doing, I shall deal more gently with the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) than did the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who made some shrewd criticisms of the amendments—in the interests of opening up such issues for debate, I presume.
This straightforward measure is intended to deal with a pretty clear-cut problem—unauthorised, and therefore illegal—trading in the royal parks. Indeed, the Metropolitan police and the Royal Parks Constabulary have advised us that such illegal trading is very much a manifestation of organised crime of an unpleasant nature.
The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, who are strongly committed to upholding good law and order, would certainly want the Government to deal with such crime.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister says that he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that this is indeed a problem of organised crime. The word "Mafia" was used. Therefore, does he think that a level 3 penalty, which is suggested in clause 2 and is the subject of the amendments, will be adequate to deter the Mafia or others involved in such organised crime?

Mr. Howarth: I shall address the specific point that the hon. Gentleman properly raises in a moment, but right hon. and hon. Members want to know the nature of the problem, so I shall respond on that general point before dealing with the fines and other remedies and penalties that may be appropriate.
We suspect that such activities are organised, but even if they are not, they involve ripping off the many visitors who come to enjoy the royal parks on a scale that should shock us all. I am advised that the illegal traders who have been arrested and charged with offences have told the police that they make approximately £1,200 a day—a lucrative trade indeed. However, they do not always have that sum on them because they use a system of runners to take the money back to those who control them. It is clear that significant penalties, including fines, are needed if we are to address the problem.
I was asked about the incidence of such offences. In 1999, about 1,500 illegal traders were prosecuted for activity that occurred in St. James's and Green parks, so we are dealing with a large-scale problem that causes widespread offence. Licensed traders are losing a significant amount of business. Their turnover has been substantially reduced—by about 50 per cent. since the mid-1990s. A further effect is that The Royal Parks agency is deprived of the revenue that it would otherwise receive from the licensed traders, so a clear public interest is involved.
6.15 pm
Apart from the financial aspects—the money made by the unauthorised traders and the sum lost by those who should benefit—we have seen a set of practices that I can only describe as squalid. We have seen episodes of violence. Unauthorised traders have gone at one another with knives as they contended for particular pitches. On one occasion, they went at one another with iron bars just outside a park. Hot fat was poured over a police officer who sought to prevent them from carrying on that trade.

Mr. Forth: What puzzles some of us is that the Minister is describing criminal activity. Presumably, the criminal law extends to the royal parks. He used the phrase "we have seen", so presumably the police must have also seen those activities. Is he telling us that the police will not or cannot deal with the criminal activities that he describes, let alone the trading and the creation of offensive smells?

Mr. Howarth: We must deal with those who are engaged in the criminal activity that we find on the spot.

The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to press me on that point because, of course, the police should make every effort to get at the racketeers who lie behind the trade. We are talking about practical measures to get at the roots of the problem as well as at the individuals who commit such offences in the parks.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I shall make a little more progress and then respond to any point that hon. Members want to make. I am dealing with the nature and scale of the problem because only when we understand that can we judge the appropriateness of the fines proposed.
Amendment No. 17 would limit magistrates courts to imposing a fine not exceeding £500 for a first offence. They would be empowered to impose a fine not exceeding £1,000 for a subsequent offence. We heard an interesting history of inflation between 1872 and 1926, and we were all grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for his authoritative intervention. We also heard some interesting speculation about the rising incidence of criminality. In fact, the penalties that we introduce must be effective, not disproportionate or draconian.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: Not yet. Amendment No. 1, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, would reduce the maximum fine that magistrates courts could impose for a park-trading offence to £500. There is no reason why we should stipulate that the courts should impose a more lenient penalty on an illegal trader for a first offence. Given the scale of the problem, the offences perpetrated and the rewards that the unauthorised traders enjoy, his proposal to impose a level 2 fine is not appropriate.
A particularly important consideration—the point was helpfully made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—is the need for consistency; that theme has emerged during the debate. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst drew attention to the activities of traders on the south bank. As we debate the matter now, we have no idea whether those traders were licensed, so we cannot generalise usefully from the observation that he made, but we do know that, as far as possible, we should have available to us a consistent regime and a consistent range of penalties.
It seems to me—I am grateful for the support that I have had on the point from the hon. Member for Ryedale—that it is obviously sensible for the regime that we create for the royal parks to be consistent with the regime that Parliament has created for the City of Westminster. The City of Westminster Act 1999 was passed only last year. We can ask all sorts of questions—they were asked in the debate—about whether there are alternatives to fines. Possibilities were proposed such as community service, but, unless we deal consistently with the same offences in neighbouring areas, we will continue to see the displacement effect, which has caused the state of affairs in the parks to deteriorate so badly, particularly since we introduced that Act.

Mr. Bercow: I hope that the Minister is not implying that there is a causal link between deplorable violence and


thriving trade. I assume that he accepts that the trade that is taking place is voluntary. In seeking to justify the fines that he proposes, what exactly does he mean by the term "ripping off'?

Mr. Howarth: I am advised that some high prices for what I would think were unappetising hot dogs and hamburgers are being extorted from innocent visitors to parks. The hon. Gentleman, who is deeply committed to the unalloyed free market, would no doubt applaud such conduct. He would say good luck—caveat emptor—but, having responsibility within Government for The Royal Parks agency and for good conduct in, and good presentation of, the royal parks, I am concerned that we should not endorse the violations of hospitality that such practices involve, so I do not agree with him on the matter.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister says, rightly, that there needs to be consistency between the level of fines in the royal parks and the level of fines in the City of Westminster to avoid displacement, but, before a fine can be levied, there must be an arrest. What worries me is that, earlier, he spoke about crimes of violence that are against the criminal code and where there have not been arrests. Is he convinced that there are sufficient parks police—there are certainly not sufficient Metropolitan police—to ensure that such arrests can be made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is going wide of the amendment that is before us. The amendment is about fines. Therefore, we should restrict ourselves to that.

Mr. Fabricant: But the person must be arrested before he can be fined.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let me pay tribute to the Royal Parks Constabulary because it is trying hard and doing its best to acquit its responsibilities in difficult circumstances. I believe that the force is sufficiently staffed for it to be able to carry out its responsibilities, but there need to be the sanctions and the penalties, which are available to the courts. Otherwise, the problem will grow and grow. At the moment, it is simply too easy for people to make a lot of money out of illegal trading, so the problem is liable to overwhelm the Royal Parks Constabulary, but I am glad to say that that is by no means the case at the moment. However, it is under a pressure that it should not be under. It is one of the reasons why we need that level of fines.

Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: No. I should like to carry on a little further.
Fines alone will not be sufficient. The scale of profiteering that I have described shows that, so we need the panoply of measures that Parliament has already provided the City of Westminster, including fines, powers of seizure and the power of the courts to order forfeiture. We need to see the fines in that broader context. The

evidence is that the array of penalties available to magistrates to use for offences committed in the City of Westminster is working satisfactorily.
We have had much debate about what the level of fine should be. That is a proper concern for the House to have, but let me remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Bill still leaves magistrates courts discretion to impose a lesser fine. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border underlined that it is not just a discretion. There is a duty to exercise that discretion—magistrates have a duty to take account of the circumstances of each case—so the concerns about proportionality are well met.
The offence in question is not, as was suggested, merely the generation of offensive odours. We have an array of much more significant offences. It is right that we should have those powers to deal with them. I hope that, on that basis, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will be willing to withdraw his amendment and to agree that what we have in the Bill is, after all, appropriate.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to answer the debate in such detail and with such courtesy. I am conscious of the passage of time. I think that we have had a proper and thorough debate.
In view of what the Minister and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) have said, I now realise that my amendments were probably misplaced and even misdirected. I feel properly chastened. On the basis of their remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

OFFENCE BY BODY CORPORATE

Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 16, after "the" insert "knowledge,".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, leave out lines 17 and 18.
No. 2, in page 1, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert—
'(a) a director or company secretary described in the articles of incorporation, and
(b) a person purporting to act in either of the capacities above.'
No. 4, in page 1, line 25, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 20, in page 1, line 25, leave out "secretary" and insert—
'company secretary (in the terms defined in the Articles of Incorporation)'.
No. 21, in page 2, line 2, leave out "purporting" and insert "authorised".
No. 31, in page 2, line 2, leave out "purporting to act" and insert "acting".

Mr. Forth: In the light the debate that we have just had, I am tempted to designate this part of the Bill the "Mafia clause". I can conclude only that the description of the clause, "Offence by body corporate", must refer to the Mafia. It has not been suggested yet by the Minister


that anything that would usually be known as a body corporate—a corporation or a company—is involved in that activity, but he has suggested, and seems to believe, that he has sufficient proof that the Mafia or some other organised crime organisation is behind it. I say that not in a spirit of levity, but to suggest that the thrust of the clause is either misdirected or directed for reasons that we have not yet been told by the Minister.
In restricting my remarks and in making them as succinct as possible, in order that we may make progress, I wish to explore whether the Minister is satisfied that the words in the clause are sufficient. That is the reason for our amendments. They are part probing and part designed—I hope that he will accept it—genuinely to strengthen the clause. However, it will be up to the Minister, as ever, to satisfy me and my right hon. and hon. Friends and to say whether that is the case. The amendment would add the word "knowledge". We want to be able to demonstrate within the clause that the offence has been committed not just with consent or connivance, but with the knowledge of an officer. That is important to make full sense of the provision.
There are references in the clause to the "director", the "manager" or the "secretary". Again, our concern was that the term "secretary" could be misconstrued and could draw into the net of the offence persons who perhaps should not be drawn in. We suggest the phrase "company secretary", which would provide the necessary elucidation or further expansion suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
6.30 pm
We are rather puzzled by paragraph (e), in which the word "purporting" appears. Unless the Minister tells us that the word has a specific meaning and will be specifically effective in terms of the Bill's aims, we propose the substitution of the word "authorised" for the word "purporting"—or, indeed, "acting". We want the legislation to be made more specific and therefore, as we would argue, more effective. I fear that the word "purporting" may not be strong enough or sufficiently focused to give the Bill the effect that I know everyone wants it to have.

Mr. Fabricant: I understand why, in his introductory remarks, my right hon. Friend described this as the Mafia clause, but does he now accept that it would not apply to organised crime unless it was committed by a body corporate? Surely it is highly unlikely that any crime organisation would incorporate itself in the United Kingdom. On that assumption, there would be no company secretary and, indeed, no officer of such a corporation.

Mr. Forth: That helpful intervention simply exposes the fact that my suggestion that the Mafia might be caught by the clause was somewhat wide of the mark, and I do not want to pursue it unduly. However, one issue lingers. We must know, by the time we have completed the Bill's Report stage and Third Reading, whether it will deal with the Mafia problem—as the Minister introduced it to the debate—and whether the confiscation of hamburger carts will be sufficient to deal with that problem. We will discuss confiscations later, but we are currently dealing with the body corporate.
I suspect that, like me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border wants to be satisfied that the clause as it stands, or as amended if the Minister feels able to recommend any of the amendments, is drafted well enough not just to deal with a problem whose existence we all now acknowledge, but to ensure that there is no risk that an innocent employee might be caught up in a way that was not intended. I am thinking of, for example, the use of the word "secretary". I assume that the Bill means officers rather than employees. I have doubts about the use of the term "manager", but I think the Minister will be able to explain that.
The amendments are intended to be partly probing and partly helpful. I hope the Minister will accept them on those terms.

Mr. Maclean: I was very surprised by the drafting of this part of the Bill. I never say that drafting is sloppy, because that usually constitutes unfair criticism of parliamentary draftsmen, and sometimes constitutes unfair criticism of the civil servants who issue those draftsmen with instructions. On this occasion, I simply say that the drafting is slightly odd or obscure. I see what the Minister and the Government are getting at; I just wonder whether the terminology is right to catch the people whom they want to catch. I fear that it could lead to an unfair interpretation in court. I am thinking particularly of the use of the term "secretary" rather than "company secretary", which denotes a legally defined person. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned that.
Amendment No.2 proposes the omission of the examples cited in clause 3(2)—"director", "manager", "secretary", "another similar officer" and
a person purporting to act in any of the capacities listed
in the paragraphs… My amendment would substitute the words
a director or company secretary described in the articles of incorporation, and…a person purporting to act in either of the capacities above.
I think that, according to a proper interpretation of company law, my amendment uses the more appropriate terminology. In all company law, the people responsible are the directors of the company involved. When companies are incorporated, they must have directors, and I believe that they must have company secretaries. The company secretary is usually qualified: indeed, I think that a company secretary must be legally qualified under the law.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maclean: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who is about to correct me.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is right in saying that a company secretary ought to be qualified, but most company secretaries are qualified in accountancy or are members of an institute. They tend to be accountants rather than lawyers.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for that correction, but it does not undermine the thrust of my argument that a company secretary is generally a recognised person with a professional qualification—in accountancy, I now


gather, and no doubt in company law, rather than that person being a lawyer. There is, however, a world of difference between a company secretary—according to the definition that I understood to be correct and what my hon. Friend informs me is correct—and a secretary. I think that, as drafted, the Bill could lead a court to convict a person who just happened to be a secretary—not a legally qualified company secretary or a company secretary qualified in accountancy; not a shareholder in the business; and not someone who has the authority of a director responsible for the management of a company and for ensuring that its accounts are filed and Companies Acts requirements are complied with; but a girl who just happens to be in a typing pool. I do not mean to be derogatory to ladies in the typing pool—

Mr. Forth: Or men.

Mr. Maclean: Indeed.
I am led to my conclusion by the fact that the word "manager" appears before the word "secretary". "Manager" is not a term used in Companies Acts either. I think that if the rules of interpretation of courts were applied, a court would conclude that clause 3(2) was trying to catch ordinary employees. It catches the director, then it catches managers of any description. They could be managing directors, but they could also be sales managers, store managers, floor managers, people in charge of hamburger barrows, or cold-store managers. If the Bill catches people who fall under the general description of manager, as opposed to director, the courts could easily assume that it catches people who just happen to be secretaries.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend raises the spectre of a worrying situation, but I wonder whether he has overlooked the use of the word "officers" in subsection (2). Surely that would rule out the secretary in a typing pool. The reference in subsection (2)(c) to a secretary means an officer of a body corporate, who would be the company secretary under the terms of the Companies Acts.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to disagree with my hon. Friend. The Bill says:
For the purposes for this section the following are officers of a body corporate.
It then refers to a "director", a "manager", a "secretary" and "another similar officer". It says that, for the purposes of the Bill, those people are now to be regarded as officers of a body corporate, which is not the normal interpretation.
I understand some of the reasons behind the legislation. The Government have concluded that some of those involved in this trade are not just big limited companies but partnerships and other funny little businesses, one-man bands, or outfits in which one person is the boss and a few other staff are working for him or her. Some of those other staff might be secretary types or manager types, but they are equally involved in criminality or illegal activity. The Government intend subsection (2) to catch all who are taking part in, or encouraging, such activity. However, if that is the case, the Government should use different terminology.
It would have been acceptable if, in clause 3(1), the Government had used the terminology "with the consent or connivance of any other staff, managers or workers."

What is unacceptable to me is the mucking around with the usual interpretation of company law, suggesting that the officers of a body corporate can include those who are rather loosely described as managers, secretaries or other similar officers. What officer is similar to a director, manager or secretary? In the Companies Acts, one knows what "another similar officer" is in relation to a director or a company secretary. The rather vague terminology used in the Bill does not help us on the matter.
As I do not want to take too much time on this group of amendments, I shall move on to my first amendment, No. 3, which is more of a probing amendment than anything else. I can accept the first three lines of clause 3, although, in paragraph (a)—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggests—it might be appropriate to add the word "knowledge" to "consent or connivance". I perfectly well accept that, when an offence is committed as a deliberate act, with connivance or consent, the officers involved—as well as the body corporate, the limited company—should face the penalty.
I do not understand, however, how the offence can be attributable to neglect by an officer. I do not know in what other spheres of the criminal law someone could find themselves in a criminal court because of neglect to comply with an aspect of company law, although I know that, under company law provisions, someone who fails to file accounts or value added tax returns faces the penalty. In this case, however, we are talking about a criminal offence, and potentially an attaching criminal record, because someone in a company—the secretary, the manager or a director—was neglectful in some way in allowing the offence to be committed.
I can envisage circumstances in which someone's trading licence for a hamburger stall has come through for Green park, but not yet for St. James's park, and some manager or secretary says to their people with wheelbarrows or carts, "Off you go—you're off to St. James's park; it's all right, you have a licence there", but gets it wrong. I would say that that was not deliberate connivance—it might be a lack of knowledge—but a simple mistake. Yet, because of the neglect of that secretary in mistakenly directing a staff member to the wrong park, for which she thought that the company had a licence from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, she might suffer the full penalty of a criminal conviction and a fine of up to £1,000. She would face that penalty because the body corporate and she as a secretary have negligently committed that offence.
The Minister may rightly say that the court would take that into account, and that the police may not charge them but take a sensible view. I am always happy to ascribe to police, including park police, a view that they will always operate with common sense. The only exception to that—this is merely an aside, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or you would promptly rule me out of order—is when one sees pictures of park police on roller-skates, which is their latest device for catching Mafia in the park. I have a such a picture—from the Evening Standardof 13 April—which I may pass to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for inspection. Therefore, one sometimes has to question the wisdom of park police—although I am told that the roller-skates are very effective.

Mr. Forth: What if the Mafia put on skates?

Mr. Maclean: They will no doubt evade the police.
Nevertheless, although we shall give police all credence for having common sense on whether they prosecute a poor secretary because she makes a little mistake in sending the guy to the wrong park and commits an offence, it is our duty as legislators not to give police the opportunity to get it wrong initially. We should not build into the legislation a provision that will lead to police catching the wrong people—those who are not the real ringleaders, company directors or masterminds who may be making £1,200 a day. I may be tempted, in the summer recess, to ask the Minister how one can apply for a licence to sell goods in the park, as it sounds a rather lucrative profession.
6.45 pm
My final amendment, No. 31, deals with "purporting to act", which I think should be substituted by "acting". As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, it would not be right to prosecute a company because someone falsely claims to be acting in any of the capacities listed earlier in the clause.
It is perfectly right to catch those who are not company directors, managers, secretaries or—if the Government wish—other similar officers, but who are acting in that capacity, actually doing it. Someone in the business may be called "the doorkeeper", "the doorman" or "the garage hand", although those titles are only a cover for his having a very powerful say in the company and the fact that he is the mastermind. In such cases, that person is acting in one of the listed capacities—he is the boss, although he may not have that title.
Someone who is acting in a listed capacity should be caught. What concerns me, however, is that there may be people who falsely claim to be acting in the capacity of boss. I cannot understand the wisdom of simply adding the word "purporting" when I think that the Government really want to catch people who are genuinely doing the acting and perhaps passing themselves off as someone else.
It is a small group of amendments, and we have not dealt with them at great length; there is much more that we could say. There are, however, a few serious points in them. I summarise those points by saying that I am still intrigued by the terminology that the Government have decided to use in the legislation, particularly in clause 3(2). I should like reassurances on the matter from the Minister, who was exceptionally kind and courteous in replying to the first group, thereby persuading my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I not to press them to a vote. We were persuaded by the strength of the Minister's arguments, which shows the importance of having exploratory amendments and a good ministerial reply.
I hope that the Minister will be able to convince us on this occasion also, so that we shall be able to make some progress—especially as there are some considerable things that I should like to say in speaking to the third group of amendments. There may be issues in that group that we wish to press further. Now, however, I should be happy to hear the Minister's reply.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments in this group have been dealt with by the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I think that, principally, once again, they are seeking clarification and reassurance that the terms in which the Bill is drafted are appropriate.
In amendment No. 18, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has actually sought to strengthen the Bill's provisions. I put it to him that his amendment would be excessively draconian—to use a term that we used in our first debate—in its effect, because it would make liable to prosecution an individual who had any knowledge of a certain state of affairs, regardless of the extent to which that individual could be held personally responsible. It could render officers of a company liable to conviction in cases in which it is unreasonable that they should be punished at all.
The type of cases that amendment No. 18 would add are ones in which a person had attempted, unsuccessfully, to prevent a misdeed—although they knew about it, they were ineffective in being able to deal with it—and various other cases in which someone who had some knowledge was powerless to be effective. I think that that would be unreasonable. I believe—as I hope to persuade Opposition Members—that, as drafted, clause 3(1) covers all the levels of action or inaction by an officer that are appropriate to prosecute.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border has just spoken to amendment No. 3, which he explained was intended as a probing amendment. We need to make provision to deal with negligence. The amendment would restrict the circumstances in which an officer of a company may be convicted of a park trading offence to those in which he has consented to or connived at the commission of the offence by a body corporate. Clause 3(1) provides that if a body corporate has been convicted of a park trading offence and an officer is proved to have consented to or connived at it, or the offence is proved to be attributable to the neglect of the officer, that officer will be liable to prosecution. That additional provision is important.
The amendment would weaken the Bill by excluding from prosecution an officer or body corporate who was negligent. The negligence might be in failing to realise that the body corporate was committing an offence, albeit that the officer concerned was in a position of responsibility within that body corporate. The officer could equally not be prosecuted if he knew that the offence was being committed but did nothing to prevent it. I see no good reason why those who have been negligent should get away with it.
On amendment No. 2, the right hon. Gentlemen were concerned that the language that we have used may not be consistent with the ordinary terminology of company law. The amendment would create a loophole, allowing officers who do not hold the formal title of director or company secretary, but who carry out such responsibilities, to escape liability. It would preclude the possibility of prosecuting a manager or anyone purporting to act in such a capacity for the commission of a parks trading offence. Furthermore, it would remove the important flexibility that is currently written into clause 3(2) that provides for the possibility of prosecuting those who do not precisely fit the categories of director,


manager or secretary, but who hold similar positions that have effectively the same functions even if they are not formally so styled.
Amendment No. 20 would not add anything to the Bill, although I assume that it was intended to clarify matters. I am advised that the word "secretary" would be interpreted by the courts to mean company secretary in this context. The amendment would create a loophole by defining the term "company secretary" only by reference to the articles of incorporation, with the result that someone who was effectively company secretary but was not formally styled as such would fall outside the scope of the Bill and would escape criminal liability.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: No. I should like to carry on because we have a little business to transact before 7 pm and the hon. Gentleman has already spoken a certain amount.
Amendment No. 21 would restrict the class of person who may be considered to be an officer of a body corporate by excluding those who were purporting to act as a director, manager or secretary but did not have the authority to do so. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seeks to change the word "purporting" to "authorised". The amendment would achieve nothing positive. The persons authorised to act in the capacity of officer are already provided for in clause 3(2)(d). The amendment would preclude the possibility of prosecuting those who purport to act as an officer without the authority to do so. I cannot see why such individuals should escape liability.
Finally, amendment No. 31 would not improve or clarify the Bill. Persons acting in the capacity of officer are already provided for by clause 3(2)(d). Like amendment No. 21, it would preclude the possibility of prosecuting those who purport to act as an officer without the authority to do so. It is again unclear why such a category of individual should escape liability.
Having heard those explanations, I hope that the right hon. Gentlemen will not press their amendments.

Mr. Forth: When I looked at the clause and set about drafting my amendments, I suspected that I might get into difficulty because I was encroaching on a narrow, legalistic area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) may have felt the same, although he has much more expertise in this area than I have, given his distinguished ministerial experience in a previous existence.
The Minister confirmed my suspicions in the most helpful and positive way. I tried to follow his arguments—he quite properly gave the House a carefully drafted reply of the kind with which some of us are very familiar. He reassured us that clause 3 has been carefully drafted; it is intended to cover all conceivable possibilities in this area. We may want to return subsequently to the Mafia point because I am not sure that the clause would cover it, but it was not intended to do so. The clause is intended to cover more organised operations, rather than sole practitioners or single-person enterprises. I accept the spirit in which that explanation was offered.
The Minister has gone a considerable way to reassure us that our unhappiness about the use of the term "secretary" was misplaced, because it is a term of art. My attempt to define it more accurately could have misfired and unduly narrowed the Bill or caused it to lose its focus. I did not quite follow the argument, but I gather that the same was true of the word "purporting", which appears also to be a term of art that I had not fully understood.
We can be reassured by what the Minister has said—that clause 3 strikes a reasonable balance, being broad enough to cover those who should properly be encompassed within the Bill and avoiding being too narrow to miss those whom we might wish to catch. I thank the Minister again for his care and courtesy in replying to the amendments. In the light of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 4, leave out clauses 4 and 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 28, in clause 4, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
'(4) Where a park constable exercises his powers under subsection (1) above he shall—

(a) ensure that he provides facilities for the safe removal from the park of any perishable material by the person having possession or control;
(b) give to the person having possession or control a document, in an appropriate language, setting out the reasons for the seizure, itemising the things seized and informing the person of his rights and liabilities under section 5; and
(c) not remove any article until he has performed an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations that the removal of the thing or things would not create a hazard for his or others' health and safety.


(5) The document referred to in subsection (4)(b) above shall comply with the model in Schedule (Document relating to seizure of property).'.
Amendment No. 22, in clause 5, page 2, line 20, after "at", insert "or before".
Amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
'(3A) Proceedings arising from subsections (1) to (3) (including appeals) shall be concluded within a period of three months, after which the charges shall be withdrawn, or appeal deemed to have succeeded.'.
Amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 30, leave out from first "of" to second "of" and insert—
'60 days beginning with the date of the initiation'.
Amendment No. 25, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
'(5A) If the Secretary of State has retained a thing under subsection (3)(b) for the period of 60 days from the initiation of proceedings relating to the offence (including any appeal), he shall return it to the person from whom it was seized.'.
Amendment No. 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 2, leave out from "anything" to end of line 8 and insert—
'which the court believes to have been used in commission of the offence to be forfeited and dealt with in a manner specified in the order.'.

New schedule 2—'SCHEDULE—

Document Relating to Seizure of Property

'(1) Appropriate Language.

An appropriate language in section 4(4)(b) is one of the following:

English
French
Spanish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azeri
Belarussian
Bulgarian
Croatian (the western variant of Serbo-Croat—also called Croato-Serb)
Estonian
Georgian
Greek
Hungarian
Kurdish
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Romanian
Russian
Serbian (the eastern variant of Serbo-Croat)
Serbo-Croat
Slovak
Slovene
Turkish
Ukrainian.

(2) Reasons for Seizure.

The reasons for the seizure are that the person having possession or control has committed a Park Trading Offence, namely (insert offence).

(3) List of Items Seized.

(List the items seized)

(4) Rights and Liabilities.

The person having possession or control and from whom the thing or things were seized shall be informed that—

(a) the Secretary of State may retain the thing or things until the conclusion of court proceedings;
(b) the Secretary of State may sell the thing or things and use the proceeds to pay his costs if the person having possession or control is found guilty of an offence;
(c) the court may order the thing or things to be forfeited and destroyed if found guilty of an offence;
(d) the person having possession of the thing or things may make representations to the court about their disposal before the court makes an order.'.

Mr. Maclean: It is a pleasure to make such considerable progress on the Bill. We are now beginning to gallop. It is a pity that our proceedings have to be interrupted shortly, because we could polish the Bill off in another hour if only we had the time.

Mr. Forth: We started late.

Mr. Maclean: Had it not been for the statement, we might now be concluding Third Reading.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I have always been keen to ensure that we get the Bill on the statute book at the earliest opportunity, following proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is excellent to see the House operating properly, as the Parliament of this country has consistently operated over the years, giving excellent scrutiny to a Bill that will make a fundamental difference to the state of affairs in the royal parks, about which many hon. Members on both sides are concerned.
My first two amendments are considerable—No. 6 would delete clauses 4 and 5. They are exploratory amendments, although there are others in the group that I may wish to pursue more vigorously. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for his courtesy and consistency and for the detail of his replies, which has enabled us not to press our amendments, having been persuaded of the merits of the case. However, if his reply to these amendments is less satisfactory than his replies have been so far, I shall unfortunately have to pursue them to a Division. I hope that we can avoid that.
I do not wish to pursue the first two amendments to a Division, because I do not wish to delete provisions that may be essential to the proper enforcement of the Act. However, it is right to explore, in the Minister's words, the other section of the panoply of legislative sledgehammers that he and his Department feel it necessary to take to those who sell hamburgers, hot dogs and other goods in stalls in the royal parks. We have already dealt properly with fines and explored how effective the Government's proposal of level 3 on the standard scale—a £1,000 fine—would be. We did not press our proposals for a £500 fine; we are happy with £1,000 and consider that reasonable and sensible. We must now turn our attention to whether the parks police should have the additional power to seize all the property of those committing the offences and to retain and dispose of that property—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No.20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

Mr. David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that this afternoon, in a written answer, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food divulged the rather alarming information that genetically modified crops had been planted in this country during the past two years, contrary to Government policy, on the basis of recent information from Advanta Seeds UK. Perhaps you are not aware that the Minister then provided further information to journalists to the effect that 14,000 hectares of GM crops had been sown and that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions became aware of that on 17 April.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would put a point of order to the Chair.

Mr. Heath: First, have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had any approaches from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at any time during the past four weeks seeking to make the House aware of that information? Secondly, is it in order for a Minister inadvertently to give


the House partial and perhaps misleading information in the form of a written answer and then provide much fuller information, which is essential to an understanding of the case, to the press but not to right hon. and hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously, the Chair cannot comment on the contents of answers to questions tabled by hon. Members, but no doubt the Government and the House will have heard the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Paul Clark: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We are here to debate the Kent County Council Bill, but hon. Members will be fully aware that an identical Bill, the Medway Council Bill, relates to the Medway unitary authority. The purpose of the two Bills is to cover the administrative area of the county of Kent. Therefore, it will be for the convenience of the House if, in speaking to the Kent County Council Bill, I refer also to the Medway Council Bill.
Together, the Bills seek to reduce the levels of acquisitive crime such as burglary by making it harder to dispose of stolen goods and turn them into cash. The Bills have cross-party support on both councils and are a good example of inter-agency working and a co-operative approach to issues under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

Mrs. Fiona Jones: As we are considering two Bills tonight, can we have some clarification? Will we be voting on both Bills, or will we have a vote on one Bill and then consider the other Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) responds to that, let me inform the hon. Lady and the House that although we are dealing principally with the Kent County Council Bill, it will be in order for hon. Members to refer, where appropriate, to both Bills.

Mr. Clark: I could not respond to that intervention as it was clearly a point of order for the Chair. However, as the two Bills are identical in purpose, it would not be untoward to refer to them both.
The Kent County Council Bill follows a two-year period of consultation with business, commencing in 1998. The promoters have taken into account many of the comments that were received and have amended the Bill considerably to ensure that it properly recognises how the businesses that it covers work and to minimise its administrative impact on those businesses.
The Bill seeks to regulate the unregulated second-hand trade. Home Office research supported by police intelligence shows that a large proportion of stolen property passes through the unregulated second-hand market. During 1997 and 1998, more than £105 million worth of goods were stolen in Kent and the recovery rate was only 25 per cent.
The scope of the proposed legislation will jointly provide Kent county constabulary and local authority trading standards officers with a comprehensive intelligence picture enabling effective enforcement. Burglary and car crime are Home Office and Kent police priorities. The recording provisions in the Bill would lead to an increase in intelligence and allow stolen goods to be traced through the supply chain to identify dishonest businesses.
I have a particular interest as my constituency falls in the Kent policing area of Medway. In autumn 1999, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home


Secretary launched an initiative called Radium, funded by the Home Office. A main thrust of the initiative is to investigate the disruption of markets for stolen goods.
Police and trading standards officers have encouraged local second-hand dealers to subscribe to a voluntary scheme requiring them to keep records to identify those selling goods to the dealer. As a result of this and other crime reduction strands of Operation Radium, the level of acquisitive crime in Medway has fallen by 19 per cent. Specifically, Operation Radium has supported the Home Office evidence and shown that a substantial proportion of stolen goods are disposed of locally through the second-hand trade. Although bona fide dealers have supported the voluntary scheme, there are a number of dealers selling goods of a type which are often stolen who will not participate or co-operate fully in that voluntary scheme.
There are particular types of businesses such as second-hand car parts shops that are particularly unwilling to operate the scheme. If a car is stolen and not recovered, what happens to it? How are the parts disposed of?
There is some confirmation of how some of these stolen goods are laundered. It comes directly from those involved in the thefts. When asked, "How do you dispose of your stolen property?", criminals responded to Kent police in this vein:
Cheques and credit cards to a female…antiques to a handler in Herne Bay and jewellery to a second hand shop in Margate.
Another contributor sent goods
to friends and known handlers in the Deal area and second hand shops in Dover…
The final contribution to the research stated:
Burglaries are committed between nine in the morning and two in the afternoon and property is sold to second hand shops later the same afternoon.
It is against that background that the Bill seeks to assist in tackling the problems. It addresses two main aspects—dealings in second-hand goods and occasional sales, and the relatively new activity of squat trading.
I turn now to some of the specific provisions of the Bill to ensure clarity of understanding. The need to register will apply only to persons dealing in second-hand goods in the course of a business. It will not apply to private individuals. Case law from other statutes indicates that there is scope for amateur collectors to dabble in the acquisition and disposal of goods without necessarily being treated as a trader.
Dealers will be required to register themselves and their business premises. To reduce the burden on businesses, registration is free and lasts for three years, and a single registration will cover both councils. There are exemptions because we recognise the issues involved. They include registered charities, for example. There are also exemptions for businesses already covered by similar provisions such as scrap-metal dealers and pawnbrokers. There are also exemptions for those dealing in goods in respect of which police statistics show that there is no particular problem, such as second-hand books.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Has the hon. Gentleman taken sufficient account of the legitimate

architectural salvage trade, which can achieve considerable savings in energy by the re-use of materials? Is he willing to consider that matter in Committee?

Mr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The Bill contains a provision to exempt those involved in recycling processes. The promoters and those who oppose the Bill will have an opportunity to discuss such details in the Select Committee.
Registered dealers will have to keep records detailing the name and address of the person from whom articles were acquired, the date of the transaction, a description sufficient to identify the articles and, in the case of motor vehicles, a record of the odometer reading. The promoters have taken note of comments from opponents of the Bill, and plan to introduce an amendment that will exclude items if the dealer has reasonable grounds to believe that they will be sold for less than £10. The legislation allows for that figure to be increased with the approval of the Secretary of State at the request of the council.
The provision will exclude a substantial number of low-value items from the record-keeping requirements, and will be helpful to businesses such as those that carry out house clearances as they effectively will not need to record the details of any goods that they expect to be sold for £10 or less.
If an article is sold for a price exceeding £100, the name and address of the purchaser must also be recorded. Consultation has shown that there are concerns about the purchaser of valuable items disclosing his personal details to an unknown dealer. An amendment has been incorporated to allow other details to be accepted—for example, payment by credit card or cheque, with the details being recorded, and for cash transactions, other forms of personal identification such as a driving licence or passport number.
As Operation Radium has shown, a substantial number of stolen goods pass through dealers' premises. However, there are other means of distributing stolen goods, including occasional sales and boot fairs. As a result, the legislation seeks to provide intelligence to the enforcement agencies to identify dealers and to obtain advance notice of such sales.
Both the owner and occupier of the premises on which the sale is to take place and the person operating the sale must give 21 days' written notification to the council. Operators of occasional sales will be required to keep a register of all sellers and their vehicle registration numbers. That will allow the police or trading standards officers to check on individuals attending sales, to see whether there is a pattern that suggests a trade status. The requirement to record a registration number is intended to reduce the likelihood of false information being given.
As I commented to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on Second Reading, we are considering the underlying principles of the Bill. The detail is a matter for the Select Committee.
There have been four petitions against the Kent County Council Bill, with duplicate petitions against the Medway Council Bill, with the exception of the petition from the Ashford cattle market, which relates solely to the Kent County Council Bill.
I shall deal briefly with the substantial issues raised by the petitioners.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Bill is based on any other regional legislation that is currently operating in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Clark: There are substantial precedents in existing private legislation—about eight Acts. The provisions of the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991 are the closest to those of the Bill.
One of the main contentions of those who oppose the Bill is that such legislation should be on a national scale and should not be specific to one area. Although the promoters may agree with the petitioners about that, the simple fact is that the problem exists now in Kent for the 8,200-odd households that were burgled last year.
As I said, it is not as though precedents do not exist. Eight local authorities have similar powers. On Third Reading of the Bills in another place, Lord Mayhew commented on the claim that piecemeal legislation was wrong. He said:
If so, that "wrongness" seems to have eluded Parliament over the past 10 years in a large number of instances.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1057.]
I have already referred to Operation Radium in Medway. I hope that Home Office evaluation of that scheme will act as a springboard to achieve national legislation. Unfortunately, there appears to be no immediate prospect of that.
There is a further contention from the petitioners that the Bill will restrict competition. The promoters have taken a number of steps as a result of the consultation to ensure that the burden on businesses is reduced. That is why there have been so many amendments to the original Bill.
In addition, amendments have been moved to modify the impact on dealers who are based outside Kent and Medway if they occasionally sell items in Kent, and to remove them entirely from the scope of the legislation if they only occasionally buy items in the area.

Mrs. Fiona Jones: Does not that discriminate against the trade in Kent? Would not the outcome be that people who were not legitimately trading would simply trade outside the Kent area?

Mr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The evidence suggests that such legislation would not have that effect. I can tell you that as a result of the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991, there are 8,100 registrations on the books this year, and I can tell you that 51 per cent. of those are organisations outside the North Yorkshire county council area, so there is an almost equal split. The legislation has not created any difference between operators in the area or outside.
It has been argued that the bureaucracy required by the Bill will impose too great a burden on business. However, the proposed legislation would require dealers only to keep good records, which is best business practice. Indeed, in the antiques trade there are codes of practice supported by LAPADA, now the Association of Art and Antique Dealers, which represents about 700 dealers nationally, and COPAT, the Council for the Prevention of Art Theft.
Those codes of practice are aimed at reducing the possibility of a trader selling stolen goods. Both codes suggest the need for accurate records showing where a dealer purchased goods and to whom they were sold.

Mrs. Jones: Can you inform the House whether—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary language and must not use the word "you", as the hon. Gentleman did a few moments ago.

Mrs. Jones: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will my hon. Friend tell us whether LAPADA supports the Bill?

Mr. Clark: I take note of your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. LAPADA has been involved in discussions and has referred information to the promoters of the Bill. It has not directly given support to the Bill.
LAPADA's code of practice, like that of other trade associations, rightly suggests that for their own protection its members should follow good business practice and keep records. The understandable recommendation is that records should be kept of the names and addresses of people from whom they buy and to whom they sell. The codes of practice contain suggestions that go far beyond the requirements of this Bill.

Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is doing a good job of explaining the Bill, but will he say how it will apply to people who are enthusiasts rather than strictly commercial sellers? My constituent Mrs. Pope of Pitney has written to me, on behalf of the Vintage Motorcycle Club, about the two large autojumbles that the club holds at the Bath and West showground each year. She is worried that if the Bill were applied nationally, it would be impossible to get casual sellers of motorcycle parts to attend because of the bureaucracy and restrictions involved. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that, and give my constituent reassurances?

Mr. Clark: That is an important point. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that sales held for charitable reasons, for example, will be exempt from the terms of the Bill. As for people who dabble occasionally in such sales, the key question is whether they do so in the course of the conduct of a business. As I said earlier, substantial precedents exist in other legislation and its interpretation to suggest that people who dabble in such matters would not be affected by the Bill. The possibility of the Bill applying nationally is not a matter that is in my hands.
I was speaking earlier about the records already kept by businesses, and mentioned the codes of practice of the trade associations. I should also mention that many operators in this sector operate a scheme for value added tax purposes that is called the margin scheme. It requires dealers to produce and maintain numbered purchase invoices that must include the name and address of the seller, the dealer's name and address, the stock book number, the date of transaction, a description of the goods that must include any unique identification number, and


the total price. That information must be recorded for the VAT margin scheme that is often in operation among dealers in second-hand goods.
It has been said that the legislation will be unenforceable. Enforcement resources must always be used wisely. Police and trading standards officers are used to working in an environment where intelligence is used to focus resources for maximum effect. For both agencies, the Bill will act as a tool to achieve business targets effectively. Indeed, Operation Radium has demonstrated that similar voluntary provisions are operated with current resources in Medway.
Finally, I turn to the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to this Bill, which has been the subject of some discussion with the promoters of the Bill. The purpose of the Act is to give further effect in the United Kingdom to rights guaranteed under the European convention on human rights. Many of the provisions do not come into force until October, but section 19 of the Act requires that a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill must, before Second Reading, make a statement in writing that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention rights. If the Minister is unable to make that statement of compatibility, he or she must supply a written statement to the effect that the Government wish the House to proceed with the Bill regardless.
The provisions of section 19 do not apply to private Bills or to private Members' Bills. As a result, it is impossible for the promoters of private Bills to comply with the procedure laid down in section 19. An amendment was suggested to provide that the Bill would have no effect until the Secretary of State had stated that in his view the Bill complied with the rights given under the convention. However, the amendment could not be accepted, as the promoters of the Kent County Council Bill and Medway Council Bills have no idea about whether—or even when—the Secretary of State would be prepared to consider making such a statement.
The promoters undertook to obtain a legal opinion on the compatibility of the provisions of the Bill with the convention. They have obtained that opinion, in which counsel stated that
on the assumption that the amendments now proposed are incorporated in the Bill, I am of the opinion that if this was a public Bill and section 19 of the Human Rights Act applied, the Secretary of State would be in a position to provide a statement of compatibility.
To add just a little detail to that statement, I can tell the House that the amendments referred to are to be made to clause 14, which deals with the powers of entry. They would ensure that a warrant would be required in every case where powers of entry were exercised, in relation to private dwellings.

Mrs. Fiona Jones: I am slightly confused by the application of clause 14. As I understand it, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows police to enter private or business premises if they can present to a magistrate sufficient reason and cause for such entry. They would be able to satisfy those conditions in relation to serious criminal cases. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the provision should be made wider in Kent?

Mr. Clark: I had hoped that I had made it clear that the Bill would enable police and local trading standards

officers to enter private properties. That would not be possible if officers could not prove to magistrates that a warrant was required.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman may have misheard or misunderstood the question that I asked, which had to do with the architectural salvage trade. People trade in bricks, staircases, tropical hard woods and all sorts of items that can be re-used. The re-use of such materials provides a considerable saving in terms of energy and scarce resources. That trade is not exempt from the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Bill's promoters will bear in mind that they need to ensure that the trade can continue to operate in the beneficial way that it does at present.

Mr. Clark: I am grateful for that clarification, and recognise the importance of the business to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I am aware that a similar problem arises with Kent pig tiles, for example. The issue is under active consideration, and further amendments to the Bill may be needed.
The promoters of the Bill have sought to reach agreement on practical issues and to amend the Bill in a way that will assist all concerned. However, the Bill's essential purpose will not be compromised. The process has demonstrated the partnership that exists in Kent between local authorities, police forces and other agencies. That partnership wants to make communities safer for residents, traders and consumers.
I ask the House to support the Bill. It will help to stem the tide of burglaries and offer support to legitimate traders and businesses in the county of Kent. Above all, it will help to close down outlets for stolen goods.

Mr. Michael Howard: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark). I congratulate him on his initiative in sponsoring the two Bills—the Bill before us and the Medway Council Bill—on behalf of the two local authorities. There is cross-party consensus in those authorities in favour of the measures. It is encouraging that the Bills at least begin their consideration on the basis of such consensus, although some of the noises off suggest that it may prove short lived.
When I became Home Secretary in 1993, I was given a briefing by Home Office civil servants. They showed me a graph, which clearly displayed the trend in crime. It vividly demonstrated that crime had increased inexorably, relentlessly and almost without interruption under Administrations of all political complexions for 50 years. They said, "This is what's happened to crime in the past 50 years and what will continue to happen in the next 50 years. The first thing you must recognise, Home Secretary, is that there is nothing you can do about it. Your job is to manage public expectations in the face of the inevitability of rising crime."
I did not take that advice. In the four years during which I held the office of Home Secretary, crime fell by approximately 18 per cent. [Laughter.] I am glad that Opposition Members believe that that is a laughing matter. Nearly 1 million fewer crimes occurred in 1997 than in 1993. It is the overriding duty of Government to do all they can to reduce crime, and increase people's safety in their homes and on their streets.
The Bills deal primarily with people's safety and that of their property in their homes. My home is in my constituency in Kent, therefore I, too, declare an interest. The main purpose of the Bill is to reduce burglary by making it more difficult for burglars to get rid of the property that they steal.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime—to coin a phrase—the Bills go some way towards attacking the causes of crime?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Every hon. Member should prize the Bills' objectives. However, when reducing crime—and, as my hon. Friend said, the causes of crime—it is no good willing the end without willing the means.

Mrs. Fiona Jones: How would the Bills reduce the causes of crime? I did not hear a clear explanation of that. I appreciate that they might make it more difficult for people to place goods in the hands of those who sell them, but I do not understand why they would reduce the causes of crime. They might displace crime. One of the criticisms of the measure is that it is a local Bill, confined to Kent. It might therefore—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Export crime.

Mrs. Jones: Exactly. It might export crime to areas outside Kent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady was making an intervention.

Mr. Howard: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) was invited to the briefing that the chief constable of Kent gave this afternoon. The hon. Member for Gillingham nods. If she had accepted that invitation, she would have heard a clear explanation of the way in which the Bills would affect the causes of crime. He explained that professional, prolific burglars operate on a rational basis. They take account of the ease with which they can profitably dispose of the property they steal.

Mrs. Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady must wait for the answer to her first question before she asks another. If burglars find it more difficult to dispose of stolen property because of measures such as the Bills that we are considering tonight, they will think twice about committing burglary, because there is so much less in it for them.
The hon. Lady made a point about burglars' ability to dispose of property in the same way in places other than the county of Kent and Medway. There is not a great deal of evidence from other parts of the country that that happens, but if it did, other areas have the remedy in their hands. Councillors in those areas could introduce similar measures. Doubtless they would have a similar effect.
There are only two relevant questions for hon. Members to consider when determining their attitude to the Bill. First, will it work? Secondly, are the burdens that it will impose on legitimate as well as illegitimate businesses justified? I have considered the evidence, and I believe that the answer to both questions is in the affirmative.
Evidence shows that such a measure has worked in North Yorkshire, which has enforced the legislation that is most similar to the Bills. There has been some dispute about the figures, but I am satisfied. I have seen correspondence with those who have the responsibility for implementing the legislation in North Yorkshire. During the period when it has been fully enforced and effectively used, there has been a considerable reduction in the burglary figures for the county.
As the hon. Member for Gillingham said, if one considers the evidence from Medway, where similar arrangements have been in force on a voluntary basis, one sees that there has been a fall in burglary there greater than that for the county of Kent as a whole. In addition, great weight should be given to the views of the chief constable of Kent, for whose leadership I have the greatest respect. He believes that the measures will be effective and make a difference.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I, too, attended the presentation by the chief constable of Kent. I was struck by the words of Mr. Alex Dalziel, the chief executive of Cash Converters. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with Mr. Dalziel that the Bill will be good for business? The survey that Cash Converters conducted showed that people were reluctant to go to its stores because they believed that many of the goods were stolen. The Bill will therefore be good for business.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point, and I agree with him.
Are the burdens justified? Clearly, there is scope for argument about many of the details in the Bill. The cut-off point may need to be amended, and there may well be circumstances in which those burdens should be eased. However, if we are to make a determined assault on crime, and do all we can to achieve what should be the primary objective of the policy—safety for citizens in their homes—the burdens that both Bills impose are justified.
Many of the opponents of the two Bills, including the hon. Member for Newark, have argued that such measures should not be introduced piecemeal and that we should have national legislation. That is a seductive argument. However, there is great merit in local experimentation. We should take advantage of the fact that the House can give local government powers to ascertain whether schemes work.
Many of the most imaginative innovations in criminal justice and social policy in the United States have resulted from local initiatives by individual states. We do not have a federal system and I would not want such a system to be introduced. However, where there is scope within our present constitutional arrangements for local innovation and experimentation to be introduced, it is something to be welcomed and used to our advantage and it is something that the Bill would provide. For all those reasons, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: When I first got wind of this Bill I was sympathetic, but on reflection I have changed my mind—hon. Members may call it a U-turn if they like. After studying the philosophical aspects of the Bill, I have come to the conclusion that it is wrong in principle. It is not that I am in favour of supporting burglary; of course we want crime to decrease and sensible efforts to reduce it must be welcomed. Burglary is theft, usually, from houses or dwellings. The Bill deals with the passing of stolen goods.
This Bill and the Medway Council Bill would deal with the problem of stolen property in the county of Kent. They are not a new initiative, as other hon. Members have said, but are based mainly on the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991. I suspect that there is not an hon. Member in the House who has not been burgled in one way or another. I have had seven burglaries and am still counting—it gets very emotional. However, I want to detach myself from those experiences to consider how the Bill would help to reduce crime in Kent, whether the ends justify the means and whether it would have any real impact on the passing of stolen goods in the local area.
As well as considering how the legislation would work in practice, I wish to end on a positive note. Like every responsible citizen, I want a reduction in crime—I am still open to argument.
A balance of reasonableness must be struck between setting rules for the responsible conduct of a business and binding it so tightly in legislative bureaucracy that it is no longer able to conduct its perfectly legitimate business.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's wish that crime be reduced, and I know that he would only oppose the Bill if he saw a key matter of principle in it. How does he square his view with the fact that the Bill would be no more onerous for the businesses affected than the industry's voluntary code of practice? How can he argue as a matter of principle, therefore, that it would impose burdens on them?

Mr. Wyatt: I wish that it were more than a voluntary code—that is the point. The voluntary code is not often practised. I will deal with the burden of that, if my hon. Friend will allow me to pursue my argument.
The two Bills have escaped any requirement for assessment, by being private Bills. Although, as hon. Members have said, they have been out to tender, as it were, and what people in Kent believe has been taken into account, I could show the House five or 10 letters from people who have not been consulted—especially people in the antiques trade, on which the measure would have an especially negative impact.
We do not know the financial or the proportional costs, and we cannot yet say what the significant benefit would be. Indeed, the two Bills might meet the description in the Government's better regulation taskforce report of two weeks ago, as being regulations heaped upon regulations, with no thought of how they might be implemented and practised by small businesses, especially those in the antiques trade.
It is fair to say that there was no consultation in the drafting of the two Bills and there has been little meaningful dialogue with the antiques trade since. The sheer quantity of paperwork that the Bills would demand

of traders is extraordinary. An accurate description of the purchase of any items costing more than £10 would now have to include such things as—I take my examples from this week's edition of the magazine Loot—a used mattress, a pair of shoes, two office chairs and an eight-month-old neutered Himalayan rabbit called Barney.
Hon. Members should consider the example of the sale of the contents of a deceased person's house, which might well contain 400, 500 or 600 items to be catalogued for sale. We all know how much we gather in our lives. Much of the material does not have much value, but most individual items are worth more than £10. In the case of even one house, those detailed descriptions would run into hundreds of records. Let us think of the many records that would have to be collated in Kent; add them all up, add in purchases from individuals, check the fairs and go outside the county to check with dealers registered outside who deal inside the county. Hon. Members will appreciate that a mountain of paper would accumulate.
It will take the police an enormous amount of time to compile and store such records if they need access to them. The resources that will be required to catalogue, collate and inspect such a mass of information are much greater than we are being led to believe. When I talked to the police in Kent, I suggested that one solution would be to use software to enable everyone to do this, but that suggestion fell on stony ground.

Mr. Paul Clark: My hon. Friend should have sold it to them.

Mr. Wyatt: Perhaps I should.
Some records at some time will always be useful to the authorities. However I cannot believe that anyone could defend placing such a bureaucratic burden on small businesses. The importance of precisely and accurately targeting only essential information is well illustrated by the newspaper advertisement that read:
Farmer aged 38 wishes to meet unmarried woman in early thirties who owns a tractor: please send photo of tractor.

Dr. Howard Stoate: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about bureaucracy. We all have concerns about heaping yet more bureaucracy on people—but how on earth are we to know whether the goods in a second-hand or antique shop are stolen? Clearly, if they are stolen, they have been taken from someone's house and there has been a break-in. Surely, therefore, the bureaucracy is a relatively small price to pay for what could be an enormous reduction in the number of burglaries and in the heartache and anguish caused to families when someone breaks into their house for gain.

Mr. Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is the principle that I am trying to suggest. If it is of such fundamental importance, why is it being introduced piecemeal? If seven—perhaps eight—counties have such legislation and it is so important for reducing crime, it ought to be introduced by the Government and not in a back-door way in a private Bill.

Dr. Ladyman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wyatt: If my hon. Friend does not mind I will just get going.
I mentioned small businesses because that is largely how the antiques trade works, and it may be difficult for hon. Members to understand that. Most stolen goods are of low value, for quick sale, and are drug and juvenile crime related. The Bill does not deal with that problem because such goods are not offered for sale to responsible second-hand traders. The dishonest traders will not register themselves with Kent county council, nor will they give their names and addresses when they sell, or keep descriptions and records.

Mr. Paul Clark: The whole reason for the Bill is to close down the market for those stolen goods. Does my hon. Friend not accept the evidence on a market reduction approach that is stacked up in the Home Office, and is available from the Kent police authority? His constituency is covered by that authority. Does he not accept that evidence that much stolen property ends up in the second-hand market? We are told that by the criminals themselves. Does he not agree with their evidence?

Mr. Wyatt: I think that that was a speech rather than an intervention, but I will try to answer the questions. Boot sales are one of the central issues. The Bill is a catch-all to try to get to the bottom of what is going on in boot sales throughout the country, but in this instance in Kent. A simpler way to deal with the problem would be for the car boot sale organiser to register the car and the number plate as each car goes in. The Bill does not go about dealing with the problem in the right way.
Furthermore, as Kent has no bordering county to the east or north, the Bill will push this trade to Essex or Sussex—or, more probably, to south London. We all know that anything of real value that is stolen is immediately removed as far from the scene of the crime as possible. No burglar is likely to sell valuable stolen property on his doorstep. The Bill is likely to encourage the export of stolen goods, as others have said. That, for me, is the issue. If the legislation is so important, let us introduce it nationally.

Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's patience. Surely the point is that if the Bill is as successful as many hon. Members think it will be, the likelihood is that after an experimental period—to which the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred—the Government of the day will almost certainly adopt it and introduce it nationally. I will make my hon. Friend an offer. In a year or two, when the legislation is a success, I will join him in encouraging the Home Secretary to introduce it on a national basis.

Mr. Wyatt: Again, I think that was probably a speech.
The measure relating to Yorkshire was passed in 1991. I take issue with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), as my figures for Yorkshire are slightly different from his, and I may discuss that in a minute. However, if the Yorkshire measure was so profound in 1991, why is there no follow-up Act in 2000? That is not the way to go. If I am correct and the Bill is based on improving the Yorkshire legislation, it is up to the Minister to introduce it as a major Bill.

Mrs. Fiona Jones: May I just—[Interruption.] It is interesting that a former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), is speaking in our debate. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides for the police to enter private premises. It appears to me that if one strips away—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady again that she must frame her intervention in the form of a question and be brief.

Mrs. Jones: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the 1984 Act makes provision for the police to enter people's premises? Therefore, it is debatable whether the Bill makes any provision differing from that of the Act?

Mr. Wyatt: I confess that I do not have profound knowledge of the 1984 Act, so I take my hon. Friend's word that that is the case.
The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, of which I am a member, is examining the rather larger issue of stolen artefacts. If one buys a second-hand car, one gets a logbook; if one buys a house, one gets information. Therefore, when one buys an antique, why cannot it be logged? That is so fundamental as to be a national issue.
Hon. Members have referred to the Yorkshire experience and the legislation passed in 1991. I am happy to argue about figures, but mine show that there were 4,971 burglaries, and 4,806 last year. That is a reduction of only—

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Wyatt: I see that I am about to be given more figures.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman may not have had the opportunity to consider that matter in more detail. However, the officer in the North Yorkshire force responsible for the implementation of the legislation has written a letter in which he states:
It was only later in 1995/96 and championed by the Crime Managers in the Force that the Police in North Yorkshire revealed the potential of the Act… This was the case in 1995/96 which saw a proactive approach to policing this Legislation.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that? The officer goes on to provide figures. In 1995, there were 7,190 burglaries from dwellings in North Yorkshire. In 1998, there were 4,801 burglaries in North Yorkshire.

Mr. Wyatt: I accept the source of those figures. However, I got mine from a library. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, figures are used with great discretion in this place. I accept his, although they weaken my case. However, I am not pursuing the burglary element of my argument, but am trying to finesse the part on antiques.
In conclusion, these two private Bills on local matters are well meaning, but are philosophically flawed in principle and, for antique traders, oppressive in practice. I quote my constituent Georgina McKinnon of Newington Antiques who said:
The antiques trade in Kent is valuable and this will certainly do us damage. The Bills are wrong in the way they have been devised with no chance of succeeding. They will only serve to alienate the honest dealer from the authorities who try to carry out this ridiculous and unworkable legislation and it is not possible to make wrong right.

Mr. Roger Gale: I do not propose to detain the House for long. I shall not oppose the Bill as I believe that it should proceed to Select Committee and be thoroughly examined there. However, several significant questions remain to be properly answered. I hope that the Select Committee will get to grips with that job.
The reasons and thinking behind the Bill are perfectly apparent. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed to the effects of burglary on individuals, and to the fact that most of us have probably had a property burgled. They highlighted the sense of intrusion and loss, especially in relation to items of intrinsic value, but not great commercial worth, which is traumatic for many people. Anything reasonable that can be done to curtail what is often drug-driven burglary and theft must be a good thing.
Kent police have taken significant steps on that and shown great courtesy in trying to explain the thinking behind the measure to those—including, I confess freely, me—who have expressed concerns about the Bill. Faced with representations from antique dealers in my constituency, it seemed to me, initially, that the Bill was using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and was over-bureaucratic. I still have some misgivings, despite the explanations that the police have given me.
The Bill's promoters would have done themselves a favour if they had consulted more with antique dealers in the county. In my constituency, several reputable people—I know that they are reputable because I know their businesses—feel that they have not been consulted and that their views have not been considered. They are genuinely concerned about giving names and addresses and are anxious about the kind of record that they will be required to keep.
Such concerns may well be allayed. However, they are genuine and must be properly addressed. To date, those people do not feel that they have been treated with the courtesy which I, at least, feel they deserve.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary, described as beguiling the argument that the scheme should be nationwide. As is his wont, he then proceeded to deploy an even more beguiling argument, attempting to persuade the House that there was some purpose and magic in experimenting locally and allowing matters to develop. He said that, if the scheme was good for Kent, in time, others might follow. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) said, correctly, that the Yorkshire measure which has been prayed in aid came into force in 1991. Frankly, if it was

that good and the previous Government—of whom my right hon. and learned Friend was a member—were going to get on with it, or if the present Home Secretary was going to get on with it, why is there not a national scheme?
Lord Bassam of Brighton, who is Under-Secretary at the Home Office, gave the Bill virtually unqualified support when he spoke on Third Reading in the House of Lords. Why, then, is the Bill not a Government Bill and why is there not a national scheme? It is apparent to everyone, in the House and outside, that burglars have learned how to ride bicycles and travel. The mere fact that something is stolen in Margate does not mean that it cannot swiftly be sold in Sussex, for instance. Indeed, it will be.
That brings me to the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991, which, as I said, several colleagues have prayed in aid. With the courteous assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the North Yorkshire constabulary, I have probed the matter a little further. A few moments ago, my right hon. and learned Friend produced some impressive figures, as if producing a rabbit from a hat. I do not know which member of the constabulary he spoke to, but I have spoken to a detective constable to whom I was introduced by the chief constable, so he does not have an axe to grind, other than in favour of the constabulary—if I can put it like that. The officer was very candid, and said that the 1991 Act is difficult to enforce on car boot sales.
We are told that the Bill will get to grips with car boot sales. However, an officer responsible for enforcement told me that it is pretty darned impossible to enforce. We are told that all the good antique shops are already doing what the Bill proposes. I shall deal with the plus side of that in a moment. We are after rogues, who find it extremely easy to trade after hours and to circumvent the Act. They do not keep records. The back door opens and the loot goes in. Later, the loot comes out through the same back door. The Act does not deal with that activity. That is a weakness in the much vaunted North Yorkshire Act. I am not saying that that weakness cannot be corrected in other legislation. Indeed, perhaps that Act can be improved upon. However, given that the Bill is virtually a carbon copy of the Act, it seems that none of the lessons has been learned.
I am told by my informant that inadequate resources and only limited time are available to the hard-pressed members of the North Yorkshire constabulary to implement the Act. There are one or two other issues with which they are dealing. Given the manner in which the Government have treated Kent county council's finances, I do not see adequate resources being provided to enable the Bill to be implemented if it is enacted. Sadly, there are no signs from the Government that they are interested in properly financing Kent for this or any other purpose.
Antique dealers in my constituency have expressed real concerns to me about the manner in which names and addresses will be taken. However, the North Yorkshire constabulary has told me that, while it is true that they will be taken both on purchase and on sale, depending on the value of the goods, no identification will be necessary. Indeed, there is none. We do not have a national ID card. No one will have to present a passport, birth certificate, marriage certificate or council tax records to prove who he is. Michael Mouse will be able to trade cheerfully throughout Kent under the Bill. No one will be able to


gainsay whether it is Michael or Minnie Mouse. That is not very satisfactory. Indeed, it is another weakness in the proposed legislation. It can probably be dealt with, but with no identification I fail to see how a name and address and a record will be of much real value.
I have mentioned that burglars cross county boundaries. The person who was extremely candid with me—that was the brief, and I am extremely grateful for the information, as, I hope, is the House—tells me that it is possible to drive from York to Leeds, even with traffic congestion, in 20 minutes. The crooks who are committing burglary in York jump in their motors, hop off to Leeds and flog their goods there. That is because the North Yorkshire Act has no remit in Leeds. Is that sensible? I cannot believe that it is.
Sadly, no longer does any constabulary throughout the country—not even the Metropolitan police—have a dedicated antiques unit. I stand to be corrected. The police do not have people who really know and understand what they are looking for. However, the burglars know. They identify the stuff and they burgle to order. They know exactly what they are going for. They leave the cheap stuff and the tat, but take the hallmarked goods and the pretty little things that will sell. The constabulary cannot provide identification because resources are not available to establish a dedicated antiques unit. However, such units will be needed if the legislation that is proposed, whether national or local, is to be properly enforced.
I note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe shakes his head. I shall be delighted to give way to him if he disagrees with my argument.

Mr. Howard: I know that my hon. Friend's argument has been advanced by those who are opposed to the Bill. It is true that there is no longer a dedicated antiques unit. However, in the view of professionals in these matters—I am not one of them—there are officers based at headquarters who are in possession of the intelligence that they need to get to grips with the problem. They are capable of operating more effectively under the Kent police model, with which I am sure my hon. Friend is familiar, as we all are. As a result, they are able to operate more effectively in dealing with the crime that we are discussing than those officers who implemented the old-fashioned approach, which had a certain resonance about it. An antiques squad sounds very good, but it does not necessarily work as effectively as the current methods, which are being operated successfully by the Kent police.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, but it will not help too much if the person investigating the crime does not know whether he is dealing with Georgian silver or EPNS.

Mr. Howard: He can ask someone.

Mr. Gale: I am surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend is quarrelling with me. I believe that there is a strong case for resourcing police forces properly so that they can have dedicated units that know what they are doing and what they are looking for.
There is a credit side to what I have heard from north Yorkshire. It would be improper of me to draw attention to the down side without putting the credit side on the

record, and I think that the credit side is compelling. As I have said, I am not opposing the Bill. The North Yorkshire constabulary has established good links with reputable antiques shops through its officers. That has led to a two-way traffic of information and co-operation between those dealing honestly and those going about their proper policing business, seeking to prevent crime and recover stolen goods. Officers are able to provide lists of identifiable goods—we come back to whether people know what they are talking about—to antique shops so that the dealers know almost in advance, if possible, what they are likely to be looking for. They will know what has been stolen or what is hot, and what can be recovered and returned to its rightful owner. We hope that that process will lead to the prosecution of the thief. Those are two significant pluses.
In the main, antique shops in north Yorkshire have installed video cameras. I understand that dealers have become quite adept at keeping people who they suspect of trying to pass on stolen goods talking while they angle them so that there is a good shot on camera. That sounds as if it is helpful to the police, and it probably helps to solve crime. That is a plus.
I am told that there are emerging patterns. The police are now adept at tracing those who tend to specialise in second-hand and compact discs, for example. They know the outlets that are likely to handle them, and they are having considerable success. I do not quarrel with the figures of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, and if there has been such a dramatic reduction, it is probably in this area. As I have said, there are many pluses.
I do not want to see the baby thrown out with the bath water, or the best becoming the enemy of the good. However, if the case is proven at all, I believe strongly that it is proven nationally as well as merely locally. We should be getting to grips with the problem of crooks crossing a county boundary and passing on their goods somewhere else.
We should have a nationwide scheme embodied in a Government Bill, not a private Bill. If we are to treat the issue seriously, resources for enforcement must be made available. As the people of north Yorkshire have found, there is no point in having legislation on the statute book if it is not properly resourced.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), has made some fair and constructive points. He appeared to be arguing for due diligence in Committee to try to improve the Bill. However, if something is not ideal and does not create a perfect world, that is not necessarily a reason for not proceeding. If it represents a step forward, let us take that step. I believe that the Bill offers us that. If it reduces the number of people who are burgled, even by only a few in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in mine, I suspect that we shall have many happy constituents.
Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have been burgled in recent years. Fortunately, I have been able to replace virtually everything that was stolen. The exception is the greatest hits of Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers. If any hon. Member can help me identify the source of that estimable CD, I shall be delighted to


hear from him. I suspect that I was the only person to buy it in the first place, and that the only person who has a copy of it now is the person who stole it.
Consultation took place before the Bill was drafted. Trade bodies that councils and trading standards officers believed would be interested were consulted, as were local chambers of commerce, town centre managers, district councils and some Kent Members. I was not consulted before the Bill was drafted, but others were. The police, obviously, were heavily involved in drafting the Bill, and several press articles stimulated debate in the county. That consultation has continued with the Association of Private Market Operators, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers, the Antiquarian Booksellers Association, the Provincial Booksellers Fairs Association, the Registered Antiques Dealers Society and LAPADA—the Association of Art and Antiques Dealers, formerly the London and Provincial Art Dealers Association. I do not say that all those organisations support the Bill, but all have been consulted. It is not fair to say that there has not been wide consultation.
Some Members have expressed concern about bureaucratic burdens. I draw their attention to the book "Buying and Selling Art and Antiques—the Law", by Brian W. Harvey, a legal consultant to LAPADA. That book sets out the voluntary code of practice that the industry is supposed to adhere to. It requires vendors to provide their name and address and to sign a form identifying items for sale, and confirming that they are the unencumbered property of the vendors who are authorised to sell it.
The form must be dated, and there must be some verification of the identity and address of new vendors. Details must be recorded, and traders are asked to be suspicious of any item for which the asking price does not equate with market value. If they have any reason to be suspicious, they are expected to take a series of steps. If requested, they are expected to submit catalogues to the local police. For sales of £500 or more—single items, or accumulated amounts—special steps are expected to be taken. Vendors are expected to check registers for stolen property.
The industry has voluntarily signed up to that list of burdens, which in my view is no less burdensome than the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) said that many vendors do not adhere to the voluntary code, and he wished that they would. When the Bill is enacted, the code will be adhered to in Kent, and we shall have done the industry a favour by taking a step forward.

Dr. Stoate: Does my hon. Friend agree that the example of a voluntary code of practice that is not being adhered to is a precise reason why we need a statutory code? If dealers do not adhere to a code that seems stricter than that proposed in the Bill, action is needed. Even if we do not reduce crime by a factor of Avogadro's number, the Bill will have a significant effect on crime reduction in Kent and, we hope, across the country.

Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even if crime is only marginally reduced, we shall do a

service for our constituents. If only one other owner of Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers can be saved from the tragedy of losing his copy, we shall have taken a step forward.
I hope that the Bill will eventually become Government legislation. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to watch the experiment in Kent and Medway with great care, and, in a year or so, if it is the success that we believe it will be, to introduce a Bill covering the whole country. I should like him to say that he will do so, and if he does not, when the Bill is enacted and shown to be a success, I shall badger him to adopt it for the whole country.

Mr. Brian Cotter: Like many others, I have mixed feelings about the Bill. Its ultimate aim of crime reduction is admirable and a cause that we all support, but that does not absolve us of our responsibility to scrutinise it. The Bill raises some difficult questions.
When the Bill was introduced in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth expressed concern that it was being discussed in the dinner hour, which did not imply that there would be a great deal of scrutiny or discussion. The other place welcomes the fact that we shall give it more discussion than it received there.
I should like to make some points about red tape, a much-discussed matter.

Dr. Ladyman: May I point out that the Bill began its consideration at 7.39 pm in the other place? The House of Lords was in session, and there was a thorough debate. The hon. Gentleman may have been misinformed by whoever told him that there was not.

Mr. Cotter: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I was not misinformed. It was clearly stated in debate in the other place that it was regrettable that the Bill was taken during the so-called dinner hour so that there was not sufficient discussion. That is on the record, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to Hansard.
I was about to discuss red tape. Clearly, the Bill will create some extra work for dealers in Kent and Medway. The local Federation of Small Businesses stresses that the vast majority of companies engaged in second-hand business are small or micro-businesses that do not have the resources to allow them easily to adapt to the heavy administration that the Bill would require. As it is a private Bill, there is no requirement for an impact assessment, as there would be with a Government Bill, and that is a shame. Perhaps an impact assessment would dispel some concerns.
My second difficulty is over civil liberties, a perennial problem with Bills directed against crime. I am concerned that the balance of the Bill may go too far against liberty. The identity requirements attached to purchase and the powers of entry granted to the police both cause some concern. The fact that the powers will be localised seems pernicious. I accept the principle of private Bills, and consequent regional variations in criminal law, but I am far from convinced that such significant changes to rights should be made purely locally. Many Members have referred to the hope that the Bill could become a national measure rather than one restricted to a particular area. If I have any real concern about it, that is it.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and other speakers, said that previous examples of such Bills exist. Indeed, they do. We have had time to assess such Bills and to see what is good and what is bad about them. There have been, I think, six such Acts, with slight variation in each case. If something is not done on a national basis, we have the prospect of a further 200 pieces of legislation clogging up the House when the issue could be dealt with nationally.
There has been talk about consultation. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to a long list of organisations that had been consulted. Part of the consultation was with ordinary members of the public in Kent and Medway, who were asked whether they liked the proposals or not. Many said that it was good news without really understanding what the Bill said. I am not saying that this Bill is particularly difficult to understand, but when it comes to consultation, it can be difficult for the general public to pick up on the pros and cons of a Bill. People might say that the Bill is good because its objective is good, without taking on board the detail. I know that concerns have been raised that trading standards officers and the police might be overburdened as a result of these provisions.
A strong case has been made for the issue to be addressed on a national basis, and I hope that that will be done in due course. I do not wish to stand in the way of a Bill that has such strong local support, but I think that it is right that the issue has been raised. Were the Bill to apply nationally, it could be refined further, with far more discussion taking place to ensure that the problems that I have touched on peripherally are no longer problems.
I repeat that I do not wish to obstruct the Bill although I am unhappy that this is a local Bill rather than a national one that will cover everybody.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) is no longer in his seat, because he began his speech by saying that he was originally in favour of the Bill and was now against it. I wanted to tell him that I have been on the opposite journey.
When I first heard about the Bill, I was somewhat suspicious. I had three principal concerns—the first was the additional cost to the county council, as more expenditure will be involved. My second concern has been touched on so often—why does the Bill apply only to Kent and not elsewhere? I speak as a Member whose constituency is bordered by Surrey and by the Metropolitan police area to the north and west. Thirdly, I heard concerns expressed about the level of consultation. Let me take those concerns one by one.
I inquired about the costs and had a letter back from the county council as long ago as October 1998. It said that there would be some start-up costs—promoting the Bill, of course—and then there would be the cost to the authority of appointing and maintaining the five enforcement staff. The cost of doing that was estimated, in 1998, to be between £120,000 and £130,000 a year. Those are substantial costs, and they need justifying. I think that they can be justified.
As for why the Bill applies only to Kent, I will come back to that a little later. On consultation, I have discussed the Bill with the promoters. I have had four

representations from members of the antique trade in my constituency. I sent them the promoters' revised guidance document on the Bill, and have not, so far, heard further from them.
It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the Bill applies not only to the antiques trade—it will apply also to the stolen car trade. I have been told that some 30 per cent. of all stolen cars in Kent are never recovered. There is a huge amount of crime in Kent, and it is not all to do with antiques.
Let me deal with the objections to the Bill that have been raised so far. First, there are those who believe that the Bill should be avowedly compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I am perfectly satisfied with the opinion that was read to the House by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark), and the issue can anyway be tested further in Committee. Therefore, that objection need not delay us.
Secondly, it has been suggested that this is inappropriate material for a private Bill. Those who argue that have already ceded the point that there have been seven previous Bills, and we have had much discussion about the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991. I hope that it is not suggested that there is any further technical impropriety in the Bill—after all, it has been examined properly in both Houses.
There is a subsidiary point on the issue of the appropriateness of legislation as to whether there is any prospect of Government legislation being introduced. There clearly is not—nothing has been brought forward, despite the good experience in North Yorkshire. On that basis, the promoters of these Bills are perfectly entitled to ask leave of the House to introduce these schemes in Kent and Medway. There are always competing demands on legislative time, although that seems an odd point given that we have spent most of the afternoon dealing with the problem of burger carts in St. James's park.
The real reason I am not concerned about propriety is that I do not object to different approaches locally; indeed I rejoice in them. If it turns out that, as a result of putting these measures on to the statute book, Kent becomes a tougher place for criminals to operate in than East Sussex, Surrey or the Metropolitan police area, that is good news for Kent. It is up to those other authorities to learn from that and replicate the scheme elsewhere—if it is a success.
That may answer my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who referred to burglars driving from York to Leeds in 20 minutes. It is open to West Yorkshire to follow the example of North Yorkshire. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether other authorities are going down that route. I believe that some experimentation and difference is the essence of local democracy. I believe also that there is a significant advantage in a competition in ideas.
The scheme may not be successful in Kent; there is no guarantee. However, if it is successful, it can be copied elsewhere, just as those drawing up the Kent proposals have learned from the experience of North Yorkshire. That is a healthy development; it is stimulating and decentralising.
Will there be some inconsistencies? Will traders in Kent have to keep records of transactions outside Kent? As I understand the Bill, that will apply only to those traders who do most of their business in Kent. That seems logical to me.
It has been suggested that the Bill will result in more red tape, and that objection we should take most seriously. There is common cause on both sides of the House that, as the better regulation taskforce has reported, the burden on business is growing. I should be concerned about that, because I spent three years on the forerunner of that taskforce, the deregulation taskforce. I gave up half a day a week in the Cabinet Office—unpaid, I have to tell the House—trying to tackle red tape, and that requires needs constant vigilance.
Are we happy to increase slightly the burden of red tape in this instance, given the greater prize that we are assured may result? I welcome the concessions made on the £10 limit, those who do not trade principally in Kent and so on. It is important to remember that the Bill does not apply to private sales; that the registration process will be free; that charities and booksellers, for example, are exempt; and that the purchaser's name and address will be required only if the value is over £100.
As to the other objection concerning red tape—the burden on businesses of registration—let me say that at least half of all antique dealers are already registered for VAT. I cannot see that this would be any more significant a burden than registering every antique on some form of a national register, or supplying a name and address when one enters a car boot sale. The red tape argument cannot be sustained.
The promoters of the Bill have appeared to be flexible, and if there is further consultation to be done with the antiques trade or others, that is still possible. If further amendments can be agreed in Committee, I am sure that the promoters would be willing to consider them.
In the end, it comes down to the fact that burglary is far too easy. It is no use us moaning at the magistrates, griping at the police or chafing at the Crown Prosecution Service. We need to find more ways of tackling the problem at source. Burglary is easy and popular. The chance of being caught or imprisoned is relatively slight and burglars know that they can cash in the results. If they cannot cash in the results, why do they concentrate on silver, jewellery, pictures and so on? That is why I find the special pleading by some of the antique fairs rather hypocritical.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) in her place. When the church warden in my village was burgled just before Christmas, she was advised by Kent police to go straight to the Sunday antiques fair in Newark. She did that and recovered some of her stolen property, yet, we have perhaps all had a letter from DMG Antique Fairs in Newark banging on about the erosion of civil rights. Burglary victims have civil rights as well.
It may be that Mr. Hamden has written to us all because he feels that the Bill would hurt his business. However, if his business is not being underpinned by the proceeds of burglary, he has nothing to fear.

Mrs. Fiona Jones: I am interested in the proposed legislation because the international antiques fair is held in my constituency. The legislation applies only to dealers and businesses from Kent. That is why it is unfair and unenforceable. That is the point made by representatives of the antiques fair in Newark. The hon. Gentleman must

address the fact that dealers from the Kent area will be disadvantaged when they come to the international antiques fair. How does he propose to address that?

Mr. Fallon: I have heard some special pleading in my time. I am not bothered about whether those who attend the Newark antiques fair will be disadvantaged. I am sure that there are reputable antique fairs in Newark. It is odd that this is the only group of antique fairs that seems worried about the Bill. I am concerned about the pleading over the erosion of civil rights. I do not believe that fences and dodgy dealers have civil rights.
I want to tell the House about another burglary that took place in my constituency just before Christmas. Commander Davidson, who lives in Seal, is a retired naval officer. He gave years of service to his country but burglars took almost everything dear to him. They took all his mementoes and naval objects, including his barograph, which had been collected over a lifetime of service to his country. What have we done for him? Police officers have called on him and he has received his letter from Victim Support. I have written on his behalf to the chief constable but he knows, as do we, that there is no chance of him recovering all the property that was stolen—an entire collection of a lifetime's service.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, if we will the end of reducing burglary, we must be prepared to will the means. The Bill is a means, although it is only one, and the promoters have done enough to convince me that it should be supported.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The war against crime is a war not of the great gesture but of the constant little step here and there, trying to catch up with or to keep a step ahead of the burglary fraternity.
Many of the anxieties sparked by the Bill are misplaced. I understand that any respectable business that knows that what it does is wholly honest and scrupulous naturally feels that any further record keeping or opening of its books to outside inspectors is a further threat, but it is interesting to hear from the Medway towns that those respectable businesses that have signed up to the voluntary code of conduct have not found the paperwork particularly onerous. They have been pleased to think that they have done all that they can to ensure that when people buy something from them it cannot later be expropriated because it has to be given back to the person from whom it was stolen. Instead of being open to a series of bad debts, they have done as much as they can to ensure that what they sell is above board.
Dealers who refuse to join the voluntary scheme open themselves to having the provenance of their merchandise questioned. If they cannot answer the question, it clearly opens the possibility that the stuff that they are dealing in is dodgy. That is important. The fact that the police and the county council enforcement officers are likely to be understaffed provides a much greater security against oppression, because they will concentrate only on those dealers whom they have reason to suppose are in the dodgy trade.
The most difficult thing for the police in the fight against crime—and we all know it—is when they know virtually for certain that certain shops or individuals are


crooked but cannot enforce any action against them. That drives them crazy. It drives my constituents crazy. A group of my constituents came to me and named a whole host of shops and dealers in my constituency that they know not only receive stolen goods but, in some cases, commission their stealing.
I went to the police, thunderstruck by that information, and asked whether it could really be true or whether my constituents were romancing. They said that it was absolutely true but that they found it almost impossible to get any evidence on which to proceed against the dodgy dealers. I believe that the Bill will do a small amount to make it harder for such people to continue in business.
There are plenty of highly sophisticated criminals around who, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, can tell a genuine picture from a fake and can distinguish between George III silver and electro-plated nickel silver at the drop of a hat, and who know exactly where to go, how to steal the goods and how to get them out of the country. In Kent, that is only too easy: they can get across the channel in hours and may well be stealing to the order of some Dutch or Belgian fence. They are very hard to proceed against, and the Bill will do little to stop them.
The police and the criminal statistics tell us all the time that a vast proportion of the burglaries that cause so much distress to our constituents are carried out by a very small number of repeat burglars. They offend repeatedly because they have no difficulty whatever in travelling five miles down the road to flog off what they have stolen. They are not like the burglars who travel from York to Leeds or into the Metropolitan police area. They reckon that someone round the corner—in Deal, Dover, Folkestone or Canterbury—will take their stuff. The police often have a good idea who receives such goods, but boy is it difficult to pin that down!
The Bill will play a small but convincing part in making such people's lives a little more difficult. If a petty burglar who causes huge distress to many people in a lifetime of crime can be discouraged because his market has been taken from him, it is well worth supporting.

Mr. Julian Brazier: As a number of colleagues on both sides of the House have put the case so strongly, I shall be extremely brief.
To take us back to first principles, I refer to intelligence-led policing, of which David Phillips, our splendid chief constable of Kent, was a pioneer. It involves a shift, which is fundamental to both Bills, from targeting crime to targeting criminals, and from solving a crime after the event to identifying and following known criminals until they can be caught on the job and convicted. Most burglaries are carried out by a relatively small number of extremely active people, a growing proportion of whom are drug addicts, and the logic of the measure is to duplicate that searchlight by focusing on fences in the same way that intelligence-led policing focuses on burglars.
We need the Bill to target fences: although it is relatively easy to discover who they are, it is extraordinarily difficult to prove that somebody has deliberately and knowingly handled stolen goods. Incidentally, there is some misunderstanding in the House as the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) referred to

criminalisation. We are dealing with a civil offence. A relatively modest civil fine of up to £2,000 will be available, and repeatedly so, for those who do not adhere to a code that is voluntary at present and underpinned by many organisations, but which will become compulsory. The police will have a way to hit back at known fences. Intelligence-led policing has already led to a staggering 70 per cent. reduction in burglaries in Kent over the past few years, and we shall be able to harvest even more of its fruits.
I want to focus on the measure's local nature as there is a danger of us becoming confused. I would support its introduction nationally, but that option is not before the House and we can introduce it only for the county of Kent and the Medway area.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend is an historian. He will no doubt recall that the civil servants of Charles V, who tried to administer his far-flung empire, remarked to one another, "If death came from Spain, we should live for ever." Does he not think that there is a similar likelihood of obtaining national legislation on this issue?

Mr. Brazier: Indeed. My hon. Friend is learned in these matters. He anticipates unconsciously the point that I was about to make. One of the differences between British local government when it was set up in the Victorian era, and its competitors in many continental countries was precisely that it was locally based and volunteer led, rather than centrally administered and bureaucratic. However, essentially the point is that we do not have an option to introduce the scheme nationally, but we do have an option to introduce it for Kent and for Medway.
I strongly support those colleagues, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who I am so pleased has joined us—the only Home Secretary in the past 50 years to achieve a substantial reduction in crime—who have said that it is worth having local initiatives. The whole point of a diverse system of local government is that local people's locally elected representatives should be able to experiment in such areas. I ask the House to give Kent and Medway that opportunity.
Still on the issue of the local nature of the measure, we should put to bed the red herring about displacing crime. When I became co-ordinator of one of the first neighbourhood watch schemes in London, people said, "All you are doing is displacing crime," but we hugely reduced the level of crime in our area. There is some anecdotal evidence that some of it was displaced, but that has not stopped successive Governments embracing neighbourhood watch as a successful concept.
Such a case with regard to the Bill, however, is much weaker than that on neighbourhood watch because we are not displacing burglaries. All we are displacing, in theory anyway, is the ability to fence goods, but if we compel every burglar to put his goods into a motor vehicle—and not every drug addict feeding his habit has access to a motor vehicle all the time—and to drive them a long way across a county boundary, that will give the police another opportunity, with the intelligence-led approach, if they are watching that chap to catch up with him, so I welcome the measure. It obviously does much to cut his margin.
For all those reasons, like many colleagues on both sides of the House I urge the House to support the measures.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I can be brief. The fascination of private business is that one sees differences of opinion within the parties and on different sides of the House. There is no doubt that we have had additional fascinations tonight.
Before coming to the debate, I was aware that different views were held by members of both the main parties on the issues. I knew that some Members representing Kent constituencies on the Government Back Benches supported the Bill and others, as we heard from the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), opposed it.
I was also aware that, among my right hon. and hon. Friends, some were strongly in favour, some had reservations and some were against, but we have had yet further variations on that theme. We have heard that the hon. Gentleman started off as a supporter of the Bill and has now turned against it, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has moved in the opposite direction, having previously been against it. He has now spoken in favour.
We have had the even greater fascination of the reference to Emperor Charles V. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), I studied that period of history. I welcome his use of that particular quotation, but one never knows what one will hear in dealing with private business.
Perhaps because of the many differences of opinion among my right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, among Members on the Government Benches, Opposition Front Benchers can remain largely agnostic. It is for the sponsors of the Bill to make their case. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has expressed some reservations. For myself, I always want to express some scepticism when further legislation is being contemplated, particularly if it puts burdens on small businesses. I am a deregulator by nature and by instinct.
Before I was on the Front Bench, I frequently said that if I was ever lucky enough to win a high place in the ballot, the Bill I would introduce—perhaps one day I will have the chance to do so—was the automatic repeal of legislation Bill, under which, for every new page of statute, we should find at least one page of existing statute to repeal. Perhaps we could follow that by repealing 10 pages for every new page.
The trouble with any Government, regardless of party, is that there is a constant flow of legislation. For many years, I was one of the vice-chairmen of the small business bureau. I know that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) shares my interest in these issues. He referred to another national organisation, the Federation of Small Businesses. I think he would agree that those and other organisations representing small business would have similar concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks referred to letters that many of us have received from a gentleman who runs an antiques fair business in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones). I was particularly concerned by one of the points made in the accompanying documentation about the London and Provincial Antique Dealers Association.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) spoke of displacing crime. As a Surrey Member, I have an interest in ensuring that we try to

tackle crime throughout my constituency and my county. Everyone in Surrey is well aware that mobile criminals using the motorway network—in particular, the M25 and the M3—are frequently involved in burglary and other crimes. It is well known to my chief constable and all his officers in Surrey that a large amount of crime is committed by people outside our own county. The issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, who strongly supports the Bill, in relation to the displacement of crime are of concern to every county. Is it possible that those who have expressed reservations about private Bills and suggested that we should wait for national legislation have a point?
I was particularly struck by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet. He said that the reasons for some of his personal reservations about Bills such as this were based on his discussions with our hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), relating to his experience in North Yorkshire. There are clearly different opinions—we have heard different opinions in the debate—about what the North Yorkshire experience actually means. If there is more than one view about the North Yorkshire experience, we need to take care before we impose yet further burdens on small businesses.
As the London and Provincial Antique Dealers Association has said, Bills such as this would undoubtedly impose burdens if they became law. It suggests that, given the demand for detailed records of every second-hand purchase that takes place either in Kent or anywhere involving dealers registered in Kent, between half a million and a million records would have to be made each year, and then thrown away after three years. Everyone who has traded in Kent would keep those records—not only traders based in the county, but traders scattered across Britain. Moreover, we should consider the extra burden imposed by red tape on law-abiding and legitimate small and medium-sized businesses.
This has been a fascinating debate, not least because of the number of Labour Members who supported my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said about his having been the most successful Home Secretary in terms of tackling crime. It is a change to hear so many Labour Members support my right hon. and learned Friend. No doubt he welcomes that, as I do. We used to hear very different comments.
I would be reluctant to oppose what my right hon. and learned Friend and chief constables say will help to tackle crime, but there are undoubtedly balanced arguments, which is no doubt why members of the same party on both sides of the House have taken different views. This has been a fascinating debate, but not one that prompts the official Opposition to feel it necessary to come down on one side or the other.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, this has been a most interesting and illuminating debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) both on prosecuting it and on the way in which he put his case. It is conventional in this type of debate for Governments to be neutral rather than to take a particular side, but there are one or two observations that I should like to make.
First, I should like to state that the Government did have objections to parts of the Kent County Council Bill, which were set out in our report of 17 March 1999, when the Bill was being discussed. I should like to place on record, however, that the Government are content that the Bill's promoters have taken on board our comments satisfactorily, so that the points covered in the report have been appropriately and properly met.
Secondly, I should like to join in the general tributes that have been paid to the chief constable of Kent. Not only does he chair the Association of Chief Police Officers crime committee, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appointed him to be the vice-chair of the taskforce, which I chair and which deals with crime reduction. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) described very well, the chief constable has led the whole drive towards intelligence-led policing not only in Kent but across the country. He has developed many of the approaches that we are now seeking to roll out across the country.
I myself have not spoken to the chief constable about the Bill but I am very keen to pay tribute to his work, and it is the case—I thought the hon. Member for Canterbury put it extremely well—that the chief constable's focus on sources of criminality, hot spots and patterns of behaviour is a model to us all in how crime should be fought. As Members on both of sides the House have described, the Bill reflects that type of approach to addressing such issues.
I therefore confirm on behalf of the Government that we understand the chief constable's support for the Bill, and understand that he supports it not only as chief constable of Kent but because he understands many of the wider issues that have been raised in the debate and sees advantages in it.
Various hon. Members have asked whether there should be national legislation in this sphere. The argument that we should await national legislation before acting has even been used as an argument against the Bill. However, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) that although I cannot follow him in his musical tastes, the Government will watch operation of this Bill and practice in other areas very closely for precisely the reason that I have just given—namely, to decide whether it would be appropriate to consider national legislation in that context. It is valuable to have this type of experiment, and to understand the issues and how they are being addressed. That is why we want to examine very carefully what is being done.
As the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, it is true that there are always competing pressures for legislative time. That is certainly true in the Home Office, in dealing with the various items of legislation that the House is considering in this Session. Nevertheless, it is important that we examine what is happening, learn what we can from it and consider the desirability of appropriate national legislation.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath was right to say that we always have to strike a balance between the burdens on industry, which he described, and the crime solution benefits that we can achieve in that regard. That will be a matter to be taken into consideration by the Government.
In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, I am not aware of other examples in other parts of the country or of other police authorities and

forces that are essentially queueing up behind the Bill with their own initiatives. However, I shall look into the matter, and if I am wrong in that I shall write to him. He made an entirely appropriate point.
I was interested in the comparison with Emperor Charles V used by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has in his recent life had to bear many comparisons with particular types of historical figures, I do not think that Charles V has previously arisen as a role model for him. However, I shall certainly draw the comparison to his attention and ask whether he needs to bear in mind any particular aspects of the emperor's behaviour in thinking how he should conduct his duties and meet his responsibilities.
I simply counsel hon. Members against making the best he the enemy of the good in discussion of the need for national legislation versus the need for local legislation. Obviously, there are real arguments about the advantages of national legislation, and the travelling arguments that have been made are real and substantial. However, that does not of itself convince that one should necessarily resist a particular item of legislation, regardless of whether one wants to follow the particular argument advanced by some hon. Members on the benefits or otherwise of local legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) raised some points about the Human Rights Act 1998 in a letter to me a few weeks ago. The situation is complicated. Private Acts are not exempt from the Human Rights Act 1998, which applies equally to public and private Bills once they are enacted. A higher court will be able to issue a declaration of incompatibility in respect of a private Act, just as it can for any primary legislation. However, Parliament has decided that under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, if a Minister of the Crown is in charge of a Bill, that Minister must make a statement of opinion on the Bill's compatibility with the convention rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham made clear, that section does not apply to private Bills because there is no Minister in charge. Some problems arise as a result of that.
Section 19 applies to a Government Bill or a consolidation Bill, but it does not apply to private Members' Bills or private Bills because there is no duty to make a statement about their compatibility with convention rights. However, concerns have been expressed about the Government giving a view about the compatibility of private Bills. We are considering the issue urgently and I hope that we may be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks, because there are important issues involved.
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General made the position clear in the House on 13 April in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Accepting that my hon. Friend had raised a serious point about private Bills, my hon. and learned Friend said:
The concerns that he has expressed on previous occasions have been taken on board. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering them seriously.—[Official Report, 13 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 496.]
I can confirm that we are considering those important issues seriously.
I have tried to set out the Government's approach. We are conventionally neutral on such Bills and I hope that I have not said anything to suggest that we are anything other than neutral on this Bill. However, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham on the way in which he introduced the debate. It is important to look at all possible ways to combat crime and this offers many aspects of interest.

Mr. Paul Clark: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate, but I shall not detain the House for longer than necessary.
In my opening statement, I said that there was cross-party support for the Bills on both councils in question. I am delighted that there is also cross-party support in the Chamber. I appreciate the contributions that have been made from both sides. At one point, we were concentrating on antiques. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) drew attention to other aspects of the legislation, which also covers motor vehicle thefts and burglaries. Those issues have not all been covered in as much depth.
Several hon. Members asked whether there had been enough consultation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) for listing all the consultation that had gone on in trade journals and papers. The number of amendments that the promoters have made to the original Bill shows that they have listened to the trade to ensure that the Bill is not overly burdensome, but still meets the essential requirements of reducing the market for stolen goods in the second-hand trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) made an interesting speech, but I was concerned by his point about the concept behind the Bill. We are seeking a market reduction which will help to reduce the incidence of burglaries and so on. However, it has to be seen as part and parcel of the overall approach.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) asked whether the Bill was practical and enforceable. When the Bill was considered on Third Reading in

another place Lord Bassam, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, responded to those who had raised the issue as follows:
I feel bound to say…that I find it hard to believe that a measure prepared and promoted jointly by the local authority and the police could not be effectively enforced.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2000; Vol. 608, c.1054.]
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed admiration for the chief constable of Kent. That should be borne in mind in relation to the practicality and enforceability of the legislation.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), among others, referred to the burden of keeping records. Many of the amendments to the Bill have sought to reduce the burden on legitimate businesses. Codes of practice within the trade require businesses to keep records for far longer. The Bill proposes that records should be kept for only two years; the codes of practice require them to be kept for six or seven years. The records have to be kept for financial purposes such as VAT. One amendment that has been agreed by the councils is that almost any record will be acceptable, so there is no need for dual recording.
I am grateful for the speech by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I particularly noted his comment about the chief constable. The reservations in the report and guidance from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have been taken on board. It is useful to have clarification of the human rights issue involved and I reaffirm that the promoters of the Bill have taken counsel's opinion and produced a statement of compatibility.
Finally, I thank hon. Members for contributing to a positive and interesting debate. In Newark, the antiques liaison officer, DC Austin O'Driscoll, said that he supports the legislation wholeheartedly because so often one finds stolen goods but the chain goes cold. The Bill is about being able to set up a paper chain, to return stolen property to its rightful owners and to reduce the market for turning stolen property into quick cash. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — Royal Parks (Trading) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 6, in page 2, line 4, leave out clauses 4 and 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I remind the House that with this we are considering amendments Nos. 28, 22 to 25, 7 and new schedule 2.

Mr. Maclean: You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, as you were taking the Chair, I was beginning my introduction to the amendments. We have dealt with important private Bills in the past two hours, but, as I said earlier, if we had not had the Government statement today, I am sure that we could have polished off the important business of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill before the private business commenced at 7 o'clock.
Amendment No. 6 would delete clauses 4 and 5. I stressed that I did not intend to press that amendment to a Division because I suspect that, as the Bill is constructed, those two clauses may be essential to the panoply of penalties that the Minister wants. Nevertheless, in order to explore whether the seizure of property was necessary, and some of the rules incorporated in clause 5 on retention and disposal, the best parliamentary device available is to suggest deletion of the clauses, and to let the Minister persuade the House that it is essential to retain them.
Clause 4 allows a park constable who reasonably suspects that a person has committed one of the park trading offences to seize property of a non-perishable nature. There are a couple of points on which the Minister must comment.
The first point is the nature of these park trading offences. The Minister was expansive in his earlier replies to the amendments proposed by my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and myself, but he did not say what he envisaged would be the park trading offences in future. It may be more appropriate, and I hope entirely in order, if, in discussing the deletion of clause 4, I pressed the Minister to explain to the House which offences he envisages will be designated as park trading offences in future.
I quoted to the House from regulation 4 of the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, which listed a series of offences that may take place in the royal parks. Those offences include stepping on the shrubbery, stepping on the flower beds and playing music. One offence, specified in paragraph (6), is trading in a royal park and selling goods and services. When the Minister makes regulations on park trading offences and designates certain offences, I anticipate that regulation 4(6) of the 1997 regulations will be lifted entirely or redrafted.
I mentioned that the 1997 regulations specified other offences, such as taking photographs for commercial purposes. If that were designated as a park trading offence, there is a possibility that colleagues who go across to the royal park opposite Millbank studios and have their photographs taken by the BBC and other august organs of the state—or even less august organs of the state than the BBC—may be committing an offence and subject to a £1,000 penalty.
Other activities in royal parks, such as displaying posters, advertising the millennium dome, displaying billboards, or putting on reviews, shows or theatrical events, could be a trading offence if done for commercial purposes.
We understand from what the Minister said earlier and from what we read in the London local rag that the main thrust of the Bill is to deal with the hamburger and hot-dog sellers. I well understand that 99 per cent. of the action is directed against those who are selling those foods in parks. That seems to be where the bulk of the offence is committed and what the bulk of the trade is. However, it would be helpful if the Minister would say whether other items that are listed in the regulations are being sold, illegally and without a licence, in the royal parks. In what other commercial activities do people indulge without a licence, under the third of the 1997 regulations? Will the Minister list what he envisages will be the future park trading offences that he wishes to create under the Bill?
My second point has to do with the seizure of non-perishable items. Hamburgers, hot dogs and chestnuts are all sold in our royal parks. One cold December day, I enjoyed some hot chestnuts that I had purchased in Westminster gardens on my way to the House. I had no idea that I was aiding and abetting a serious criminal offence, or that I was buying the local Mafia's nuts. I can understand why park constables should be empowered to confiscate the carts or barrows of the people who sell such commodities, and that those constables would not want to have to deal with a great many hot dogs, hamburgers and fried onions.
However, the little wheeled carts or barrows used by food sellers in parks are often red hot, thanks to the fire that burns inside them. They also contain red-hot fat in which to cook the items, and any park constable who tries to seize such a cart clearly risks injury—to himself and to others. However, clause 4 makes it clear that the Government do not want park constables to take the edible material—cooked chestnuts, half-cooked hamburgers and hot dogs, fried onions and fat—when they seize the barrow and the rest of the equipment.
In those circumstances, what are the park constables to do? I do not want to be facetious, but to make a genuine little point.

Mr. Forth: I think that my right hon. Friend makes a genuinely big point. In Standing Committee, the Minister was asked a similar question, to which he replied:
The Royal Parks Constabulary will follow the same procedures as City of Westminster council officials, who offer the unlicensed trader the opportunity to take the perishable goods away. Almost all traders accept that invitation—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 March 2000; c. 9.]
In other words, there is no answer to the question, according to the Minister's response in Standing Committee. Thank goodness, therefore, that we can do the job properly on Report today. I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the Minister hard for a satisfactory answer now.

Mr. Maclean: I have been stirred up by my right hon. Friend on a point that I may, negligently, have glossed over as minor. The mind boggles when one tries to imagine how traders take their goods away. This morning,


I tried to purchase—for academic and scientific reasons—a hot dog and/or a hamburger from the two chaps at the House of Lords end of Westminster gardens.

Mr. Forth: Without onions?

Mr. Maclean: No; they smelt rather good. The two men were selling their goods when I passed at 10 o'clock this morning. It would be out of order to comment on the quality—we have already discussed the smell and whether the stink may be objectionable to local people. Clause 4 gives park constables the right to take the equipment: the barrow, or sort of stainless steel and aluminium cart that the chap at the House of Lords end had this morning. He looked as if he was in his 90s—I cannot imagine that he was a Mafia person. I am not trying to make an ageist remark—I hope that, if the Government set up a commission for age equality, it will not prosecute me.
The old boy who was selling hamburgers and hot dogs at the House of Lords end this morning had a large bag of unpeeled onions and a large bag of sesame seed rolls. As I passed, he had a fry-up on the go. It smelt rather good at 10 o'clock. The hot dogs, the hamburgers and the onions were on the griddle. If the park constable had arrived and used his powers under clause 4 to seize anything of a non-perishable nature, he would have taken the aluminium cart and barrow, but he would not have been empowered legally to take the bag of unpeeled onions or the bag of sesame seed rolls. Doubtless, the seller could return those. What on earth would the constable do with the food that was sizzling away on the griddle, ready for the tourists to eat?

Mr. Forth: Perhaps the answer is to include a grandfather clause in the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: I am one of the few hon. Members who, many years ago, passed their articulated truck driving qualification. I believe it was called the national certificate of competence in road traffic management—those are the correct words, but they are not necessarily in the correct order. Doubtless those in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions could advise. Having done the qualification, I should be better able to advise my right hon. Friend. However, I had better not go down that route.
It may appear that I have been slightly facetious, but there is a genuine problem, which the Bill does not address. I hope that the Minister will deal with it in his reply. Parks police will have to devise extra legal measures to deal with the problem. The Government have given them no help in the Bill. I shall not vote against the clause, but the Government will give the police powers to seize non-perishable goods but no powers to deal with perishable goods, which constitute 99 per cent. of the problem, given that the food sellers cause the main difficulty. What will happen to them?
Clause 5 states:
The Secretary of State may retain anything which has been seized under section 4 until the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the seizure.
Subsection (3) applies where before the end of that period an information for a park trading offence is laid.

Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to "retain the thing"—or things—until the court case is over. If an award is made, the Secretary of State can hang on to "the thing seized" until the costs have been paid.
The clause uses standard forfeiture terms that may appear in other legislation. The fact that the parks constables have seized the items and the Secretary of State has hung on to them means that their value instantly diminishes. If the person buys the goods new, they become second hand as soon as he uses them. By the time that they have been confiscated by the parks police, they are third hand. The value declines immeasurably. The retention and disposal provisions make it impossible for the Secretary of State to get a fair price for the goods.
Perhaps that is part of the penalty. If the Government say that it is, I have no qualms about it. Part of the penalty that we parliamentarians are building into the legislation is that a parks constable may seize the cart, the barrow, the brazier, and all the rest of the stuff, which are perhaps worth £500. However, the second that they are seized by an organ of the state and are sold off at a warrant sale or a disposal of surplus Government junk and property, they are worth only a tenner—that seems to be standard practice. Are we saying that we are happy with that and that it is another penalty that the person has to suffer when his goods are confiscated? He has not a hope in Hades of getting anything like the real value or a fair market value. With Government sales of surplus property and surplus equipment, or at sales at Waterloo station of all the equipment that people leave on trains, including umbrellas and wooden legs, one gets a fantastic bargain. People do not like going to such a sale because things have been handed in or they may have been stolen and, although they are dirt cheap, it is all awful and tacky.
If the Government confiscate the property, when it is sold on behalf of the people who have committed the offence, the Government will get nothing like its real value—the people from whom it has been confiscated will get nothing like its value.
If that is the case, let us be honest with the House. Then we will know that we are passing yet another sanction. We dealt with the fines in clause 2. Another part of the penalty will be the fact that the goods will be sold for a song and people will have to suffer that penalty as well.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend will doubtless have seen recent press reports that suggest that bailiffs should no longer sell off the goods and chattels of people who have committed some offence. The argument is that the goods and chattels have so little value nowadays that it is not worth the effort of seizing them. Does he agree that, if the equipment that is be seized under the Bill is re-sold—as he said, it will have a low value—it is likely to be sold back to the same sort of people who are committing the offences in the first place?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was concluding my remarks on the amendment and I was about to mention bailiffs and warrant sales. It is a fact that, if one is unfortunate enough not to have paid one's bills and bailiffs seize one's property, one never gets anything like its real value. That is a good allusion to what may happen under this clause. One may purchase a new television for £300 today, but the second that one takes it out of the shop, it is second-hand. If the bailiffs seize it tomorrow, they may get £50 for it, if they are lucky.
The same is true of the hamburger stalls, although they may be of greater value to the sort of people who are in the business than to my hon. Friend and me, who do not want to purchase a hamburger stall, or to the general public. The specialists who trade in the business may pay slightly more for them. I do not think that the Government would want to sell them back to the sort of people from whom they confiscated them, unless those people had got a licence in the meantime.
The main amendment in the group is No. 28, which would provide that the constable ensured that there were facilities for the safe removal from the park of perishable material by the person in possession or control. I will not again discuss the problem of the burgers, the sausage rolls and what one does when someone takes the trolley that they are on but not them.
Amendment No. 28 suggests a solution to the Government. If they are going to give the park constables the powers under clause 4 to seize the fellow's cart and barrow, under my amendment they must stipulate that the park constables and police must have facilities for the safe removal of the perishable materials. If the hamburger seller usually takes away his stuff when the police tell him to move on, he will want to take it with him. For example, the sack of unpeeled onions that I saw this morning must have been worth a few pounds. The seller would want to take it with him—no problem. He would want to take his buns with him, but I bet that he would not take his semi-cooked hot dogs and half-fried onions with him. That would not make sense. So what will happen to them?
The royal parks are meticulously kept. It was a tragedy to see the damage in the park at Millbank after the millennium celebrations. The garbage left behind was appalling. I felt sorry for the park staff as they tried for days to clear up. Nevertheless, Mr. Haselhurst—I mean, Sir Alan—Mr. Deputy Speaker—there have been so many occupants of the Chair tonight—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is one of the quickest promotions that I have ever received.

Mr. Maclean: It is well deserved, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I will not discuss further the problem of garbage in the park after the millennium celebrations. However, such problems could be increased, if the park constable exercised his powers under subsection (1) of the clause and had to dispose of the material. He cannot take it with him, because he is not empowered to remove non-perishables. He would probably not want to touch them; they could be dangerous or a health hazard—discuss that matter later. The person from whom he has removed the property would not want it. Those apparent Mafia types are hardly likely to want to put their semi-fried onions into a poly bag to take them away—they will just chuck them into the bushes. They will dispose of them in the easiest possible way. If their non-perishable equipment has been confiscated, they will dump the semi-cooked burgers and hot dogs.
We need to ensure that, when a constable exercises such powers, he brings with him a bucket or a dustbin or insists that there is some facility for getting rid of the

perishable material that the person conducting the illegal or criminal activities is ready to dump in the park. My amendment states that the constable
shall give to the person having possession or control—
of the thing or things to be seized—
a document, in an appropriate language, setting out the reasons for the seizure, itemising the things seized and informing the person of his rights and liabilities under section 5.
My rough attempt at a model schedule sets out what the person whose property has been confiscated should be told. Some colleagues may have found some parts of that schedule amusing, because I listed the languages that are used by many of those sellers—or so I am informed. It has been pointed out that many people engaged in such activities were of eastern European origin—some were asylum seekers. Under normal police rules and PACE, when people are taken to police stations and charged, the normal procedure is for interpreters to be employed and for people to be informed in their own language of their rights, duties and obligations and of the reasons for the charge.
That is a fundamental principle; it would be a breach of the convention on human rights to take people who are not English to a police station and charge them in English when they do not have a clue about what is going on. The police are under an obligation to make sure that such people understand.
The Minister, with all his excellent advisers, may tell me that my schedule is not perfect or inappropriate—it may contain too many languages. I may have the wrong languages; it might be condensed or improved. However, it is a rough attempt to say that a person arrested in a park who has his property seized should be told what is happening in a language that he understands. I have included English, French and Spanish and many eastern European languages, which the Library of the House of Commons kindly provided for me. I shall not go through them.

Mr. Forth: Why not?

Mr. Maclean: The new schedule speaks for itself. I offer it merely as guidance for the Minister and hope that he will accept the concept in principle and tidy up the details later. The other place, which is, of course, much closer to the illegal hamburger sellers than we are, may wish to concentrate on refining the schedule.
The new schedule also provides that the person should be given the reasons for seizure, which is common practice, for example, when a health and safety at work notice is issued warning someone of a prohibition, or when an inspector sets out reasons in an improvement notice. In this case, the reasons for seizure should be set out so that the person involved may take them to his lawyer, or whoever.
There should also be a list of the items seized. There is nothing fancy or posh about that; it is a simple form of receipt, which will protect the park constable. If the people involved have criminal links with organised crime, the next new racket will be suing the parks constables for the equipment that they have confiscated. It is a source of distress and annoyance to me that one of the best rackets going is suing the Metropolitan police for no good reason. People who trip over pavements sue the Met. I can see people getting into the same racket with claims that the


police have confiscated equipment worth tens of thousands of pounds. The parks police will have to spend a fortune defending the allegation and proving that they were right. A receipt would provide protection for the constabulary.
Finally, my model new schedule, to which the Minister or other hon. Members may wish to add, suggests that the person should be told his rights and liabilities. The Minister may say that they are set out in the Bill and that the person could read clause 5 or clause 6. However, when police officers stop and search someone, they tell the person that he has been stopped and will be searched and they give him his rights and liabilities under the PACE rules.
I have tried to replicate that so that a person will be told all his rights—I hope that I have listed all of them, but I may not have. The person will be told that the Secretary of State may hang on to his barrow and trolley until court proceedings are finished. He will be told that the Secretary of State can sell them off and keep the proceeds until costs are paid, and will then return the remainder, if there is one. He will be told that the court may hang on to his goods and that they may be forfeited or destroyed if he is found guilty. He will be told that he has the right to make representations to the court before the court decides how to dispose of his goods.

Mr. Owen Paterson: My right hon. Friend has taken advice from the Library on the relevant languages. Why did he miss out German and Italian? There are significant German minorities in eastern Europe, and many poorer people from the Mezzogiorno in southern Italy try to come to the UK.

Mr. Maclean: That is a good point. I deliberately missed out languages that I thought were not used by those involved. Perhaps not many English people are involved, but it is a common language, and a parks constable must serve a notice in English when he arrests anyone. I included the languages of people who, I had heard or read or been instructed, might be involved in the activity. I was not aware of many Italians or Germans being involved. It may be best simply to have a schedule of the main United Nations languages: English, French, Spanish, German—American is not a United Nations language, is it?—and some of the main Indian or eastern European languages.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Esperanto?

Mr. Maclean: I respect those who participate in Esperanto and recently attended a national conference on it in my constituency, but I did not think it appropriate to the new schedule.
I was speaking about the part of amendment No. 28 that deals with the proposed new schedule. I consider amendment No. 28 to be terribly important, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that he will accept some of it in spirit or in context.
The final part of amendment No. 28 relates to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988. Under proposed subsection (4)(c), the constable
should not remove any article until he has performed an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations that the removal of the thing or things would not create hazard for his or others' health and safety.
This is a slightly different point from disposing of obnoxious hamburgers. Disposal of the hamburgers into the bushes may cause an environmental hazard. If the constable grabbed the red-hot chestnuts and the burning brazier, he would injure himself. I refer not to the burning Brazier from Canterbury—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—but the burning brazier containing charcoal and chestnuts.
Park constables will be expected to take such articles. Apart from obvious things such as hot fat and burning charcoal, there will be heavy trolleys which may be of an odd construction. Some of the barrows may be built of steel and various contraptions on them may be dangerous to the health of someone who does not know how the barrow is constructed. If the constable takes possession of a mobile cart, which has a steel frame and is covered by a parasol, and he does not know how to collapse that parasol, fold the barrow, load it on to his parks' department vehicle, he could suffer a serious back injury or other injury.
The amendment suggests that, in those circumstances, before the park constable and the police take possession of these contraptions, they perform a quick assessment that doing so will not injure their health and safety or the health and safety of others who may have to do so. The amendment refers to performing an assessment, but I think that in reality it would be a checklist—a simple page of A4, with a list of items that the park constable can run through and tick off. If he is then satisfied that he can confiscate the red-hot chestnut trolley with the burning charcoal brazier with no risk to his health or that of others, he can carry on.
The Minister may pooh-pooh this idea, or say that it is not necessary to include it in the law. I am not a betting man, and one should not, in any case, lay a bet on the Floor of the House of Commons. However, I am willing to bet that, when the Bill becomes an Act and the police have to operate its provisions, they will perform a COSHH assessment before carrying out any of the requirements specified. The requirement to perform health and safety assessments before making any police decisions bogs down the rest of the civil constabulary. It will take only one bobby or one park constable to be injured for a claim for £500,000 to be made, and then the Department will have to ensure that these actions are carried out safely.
Amendment No. 28 is my main area of concern. I will not speak to amendment No. 7. It makes sense to me, but it would make sense to others only if various other amendments were grouped with it. As those other amendments have not been selected for debate, I do not wish to speak to it.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me that clauses 4 and 5 are essential, tell us more about what park trading offences he envisages being designated, deal with the problem of perishable goods, mention COSHH and say what facilities there will be for the safe removal of perishable materials. I hope that he will also be able to


reassure me that there will be procedures for telling these people—who apparently include many asylum seekers and foreign nationals—in their own language, whatever that may be, about their rights, obligations and duties.

Mr. Forth: I want to reinforce some of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and then cover some other points. I share my right hon. Friend's anxiety about a lacuna in the Bill as drafted. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said:
It would be helpful if the Minister could give a more graphic account of what will happen to perishable goods.
That is the thrust of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has said. I confess that I posed a trick question to my right hon. Friend earlier, because I quoted the first part of the Minister's reply. The Minister said:
The Royal Parks Constabulary will follow the same procedures as City of Westminster council officials, who offer the unlicensed trader the opportunity to take the perishable goods away.
That concerns the man with the hot nuts who is running off in the opposite direction. In fairness to the Minister, he went on to say:
The trader is asked to sign a form acknowledging that he is either taking or refusing to take the perishables, whichever applies.
We now have some documentation entering the scene, although none of that is in the Bill. He went on:
If he refuses to take them, it is on the understanding that they will be destroyed by the enforcing authority to protect environmental health and the general amenity of the surroundings.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 March 2000; c. 8–9.]
That raises more questions and, at best, is a partial answer to the problem. Never mind that the trader is being offered options, or that documents are being filled in, seemingly on the spot; it raises the question as to how or when the goods will be destroyed by the enforcing authority. So we have a Mafia man with his cart in the middle of a royal park, peddling hot dogs and hamburgers. His collar is felt by the constable, and documents are then filled out in the middle of the park. Then, the enforcing authority appears mysteriously to take away the offending items. That does not sound right to me, and we will have to hear more from the Minister. That is not a credible sequence of events, but it is all we have on record from the Minister in the 35 minutes of the Committee.
I am not happy with the proposal, which is why I am attracted by amendment No. 28. The amendment proposes that when the park constable is exercising his powers, he must ensure that he provides facilities for the safe removal from the park of the perishable materials. That is an explicit requirement, which, at the moment, I cannot find in the Bill, and which we are being asked to take on trust.

Mr. Swayne: I am concerned by the use of the word "safe". What are the hazards consequent upon hot nuts, either environmental or otherwise?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend knows about the hazards because my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border explained them. We are talking about the definition of heated items. We are talking about heated hamburgers, heated hot dogs and hot fat. Those are all

perishable and potentially dangerous. They are a hazard to health and a danger to whoever handles them. That is where the COSHH regulations arise, which were correctly mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border under amendment No. 28.
I recall dealing with this in the past when I had certain responsibilities for the Health and Safety Executive. There is an attempt under the regulations to try to ensure that in the workplace—ironically, this is a workplace of sorts—we do whatever we can to ensure that unnecessary hazards are not met. There could be a hazard for the Mafia man, with whom we are becoming familiar—or even fond—the officer and any members of the public in the vicinity. Let us not forget that this is a public area. We have a responsibility to ensure that, as far as possible, all those people are protected. That is why I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. Enough of that.
My amendment No. 22 seeks to strengthen the Bill. I thought that there was a risk that the drafting of clause 5(2)(b) may be unduly restrictive. Subsection (2) says:
Subsection (3) applies where before the end of that period an information for a park trading offence is laid—

(a) against the person from whom the thing was seized, and
(b) in respect of his activities at the time of the seizure.


It occurred to me that the words,
at the time of the seizure
may be unnecessarily and unfortunately restrictive.
My amendment seeks to insert the words "or before". It occurred to me that a narrow interpretation of the current drafting could unnecessarily restrict the powers available to the precise moment of seizure. To be more effective, the subsection needs to be broadened to encompass activities that may have occurred before or just before the time of seizure. I am trying to be helpful. I have identified what I believe is unduly restrictive wording and I hope that the Minister can reassure us or, who knows, accept this modest but helpful amendment.
Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 touch on what I believe is an important area. Throughout the Bill we are talking, necessarily, about a tension or conflict between the understandable desire of the authorities and the House to deal with what everybody perceives to be antisocial, unpleasant and unfortunate while also dealing with individuals who have rights, who are attempting to run a business and who own property in the form of perishable or non-perishable materials.
The Bill introduces some draconian powers. Indeed, clause 4 is entitled "Seizure of property" and clause 5 is entitled "Retention and disposal". One of the main arguments in favour of the Bill—it is argued by the Minister—is that, in addition to mere fines, which were discussed earlier, the ability to seize or confiscate property will be one of the most potent new weapons available to the authorities.
Given all that, and accepting the thrust and the principle of the Bill, what bothers me is that we must make sure that we strike the appropriate balance between our desire to do all the necessary seizing, confiscating, punishing and stopping of illegal trading while considering the proper rights of the individual. We live in an age where we are sensitive, perhaps overly so, about the powers of the police and the possibility of giving them more.
I bet that, in a different context, the Chamber would be full of people frothing at the mouth at the suggestion that we should give the police any more powers, yet the Bill gives the police considerable extra powers and there is little frothing. I am puzzled as to why such powers should be given almost casually in this case, when in other circumstances there would be widespread concerns.
My modest amendments are an attempt to strike a proper balance between the increase in powers and the rights of individuals, by putting reasonable time limits on the process, so that if someone is deprived of his livelihood and it turns out, after rapid due process, to have been an injustice, he will at least be deprived of it for only a minimum, reasonable time. We all know that the wheels of justice tend to grind somewhat slowly. If such draconian powers are introduced, some innocent individuals may be deprived of their livelihood almost indefinitely, or at least for too long.

Mr. Swayne: Under some of the amendments, including No. 28, for which I know my right hon. Friend is not personally responsible, the police may actually lack powers. I am not persuaded of the hazardous nature of many of these comestibles—they are for consumption—but if we accept the force of the amendment, that they are hazards, under proposed new subsection (4)(c) they are not to be removed; they are to stay in the park. What agency is to remove them thereafter?

Mr. Forth: That thought is even less palatable—if I may use that word—than what we had before. My hon. Friend illustrates the alarming element of doubt in everyone's mind about what is to happen to these hot, unpleasant perishables when the cart has been seized. Are they left in the park? Are they taken away, and by whom?

Where are they put as a matter of safety? The Minister may have satisfied the Committee—it went so quickly that nobody would have noticed whether he did—but he has not yet satisfied us. We are now properly fulfilling our role on Report, and he will have the time carefully and comprehensively to answer our questions.
I tabled my amendments to raise those questions and to probe. I hope that we will get full answers, because I am very attracted by amendment No. 28, which contains much that is valuable and would strengthen the Bill. We will listen very carefully to the Minister's response before deciding how far to proceed. If necessary—if we are not satisfied—my right hon. Friend may want to press amendment No. 28 to a vote.

Mr. Chope: I support amendment No. 6. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that it was designed to probe. My worry is that clauses 4 and 5, which it would delete, might have unintended consequences—not an unusual effect for the legislation that we discuss.
The rationale for the Bill is succinctly expressed by a source at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as reported in The Daily Telegraph on 4 February. He said:
The Royal Parks should be a showcase for Britain. They should not be ruined by a dodgy geezer selling a burger on a dirty old trolley.
Clauses 4 and 5 could mean that there are more people selling burgers on dirty old trolleys than on clean new ones. Those who sell such goods should, in the interests of public hygiene, have equipment to refrigerate the uncooked goods, separate cooked and uncooked meats and ensure that the cooking is done to an adequate temperature to kill the vile bugs that the Food Standards Agency—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Manufacturing Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

10 pm

Mr. Laurence Robertson: During this Adjournment debate, which I am pleased to have secured, I hope to talk about matters equally as interesting as hamburgers, of which I am a great eater. I thank the Minister for attending, especially as manufacturing industry was discussed at length yesterday. I shall try not to repeat any of those remarks.
I have initiated the debate because I have a manufacturing background, although I have no interest to declare these days. However, I have worked for about 80 different companies as a consultant. Most were manufacturing companies and a lot were in the textile industry. I want to consider the background to manufacturing, discuss the problems that the industry faces and perhaps touch on a couple of local issues that affect my constituency.
Since the industrial revolution, the wealth of this country and individual prosperity have increased greatly because of developments in manufacturing such as automation and mechanisation. It is relatively difficult to improve the productivity of a restaurant or of service industries, but increased wealth can be achieved by improving manufactured goods industries and through the world trade that that facilitates. Service industries are not easily traded internationally, but it is relatively easy to trade manufactured goods, although it is crucial to be efficient in world terms. In other words, better manufacturing performance makes goods relatively cheaper and makes us all better off. That is the battleground and, therefore, that is where we must concentrate.
Manufactured goods also represent about 63 per cent. of our exports, so they are extremely important in terms of national earnings and the relative wealth that is created for the people of this country. However, I am concerned by some manufacturing industry statistics which suggest relative decline. Indeed, some are startling. The manufacturing industries employed 8.3 million people in 1950, and that figure remained relatively stable for about 20 years. Today, they employ only 4 million. To put that into perspective, manufacturing employed about 41 per cent. of the work force in 1950. I do not want to be party political, but the Government have said that 160,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since the election and the percentage of those working in manufacturing has fallen from 18 to 16 per cent.
There are other problems. Companies find it difficult to recruit school leavers, who find the computer, high-tech and financial services industries far more attractive. Many potential recruits have been lost over the past 20 years or so because at one stage employing young people became expensive. That mistake should not be repeated, and I shall return to that point.
We have to accept that productivity increases and mechanisation have in part caused the decline in the number of people employed in manufacturing industry, and manufacturing's share of gross domestic product represents another depressing statistic. In 1950, manufacturing provided about 37 per cent. of GDP.

Today, that figure is 20 per cent. and falling. It would be easy to say that industrial workers have been very greedy. At times, that has been the case, but, using the same dates, in 1950, wages in manufacturing were about 104 per cent. of the average wage—slightly above average. Today, they are about 99 per cent., so it is not true that manufacturing workers have priced themselves out of work.
Some of the decline that I have spoken of is relative. It is due to the growth in service industries. However, the demand for manufactured goods is on the increase. These days, many families do not have just one car. Quite a few have two, or sometimes even more. There are colour televisions not just in one room in a house, but sometimes in two, three or even four. Likewise, computers, mobile phones and pagers—mine is being a nuisance at the moment—are commonplace, so there is a great call for manufactured goods. There is a market for more and more goods. The saturation point with manufactured goods is much higher than that for the service industries.
All that is borne out by the level of imports. Twenty years ago, manufacturing made up about 50 per cent. of all imports. Now, the figure has risen to 67 per cent. At the same time, although there has been greater demand for services domestically, the level of services imported has been static because it is more difficult to import services. Because of that, we are retaining service industry jobs but losing manufacturing industry jobs. However, it is manufacturing that creates the added valued. Manufacturing has not declined because there are no orders, or because no one wants manufactured goods—far from it. It has declined for other reasons.
May I suggest several ways in which the Government might help manufacturing industry? First, it has been right to concentrate on the car and coal mining industries recently, but there are many other industries in the country—perhaps not high profile and perhaps a lot smaller, but they require recognition of what they contribute to GDP and, indeed, to the wealth of the nation. Thousands of jobs in, for example, the textile industry, my old industry, have been lost recently.
Secondly, it is essential that instead of increasing taxes, the present Government—indeed, all Governments—should cut taxes. Taxes stifle enterprise, put up costs and drive jobs abroad. A particular example is petrol in the United Kingdom, which I understand starts off as the cheapest in Europe, but, when tax is added to it, ends up the dearest.
Thirdly, some countries that are far less efficient than us are catching us up because they are less regulated. Again, many regulations that have been introduced by the Government, although well intentioned, will not help. Companies stopped employing and training youngsters, as I have said, because it became too expensive to do so, partly because of the wages councils that existed at that time. I would not want further regulation and burdens to cause industries to employ even fewer youngsters.
Fourthly, it is important that we understand industry. It is extremely difficult to make things. Deadlines are tight and margins are low. The quality of manufactured goods, rightly, must be very high. Fifthly, we should ensure that European competition rules are not being broken by other countries on the continent when we try to comply with them so strictly. Sixthly, we should pursue policies that would enable interest rates to be reduced and, therefore,


the pound to fall in value, although it seems that the weakness of the euro as a currency will always be a problem—at least it will be for the foreseeable future.
While I am on Europe, my final suggestion is that the Government should avoid economic and monetary union at all costs. We should be more competitive than Europe and not the same as Europe. If we are just the same as Europe as regards add-on costs for industry, employing people, tax, wages and everything else, why on earth should companies come to the periphery of Europe? They would build factories in the centre of Europe. We must be different from Europe and, indeed, better than Europe.
I want to mention two local issues that are to do with manufacturing industry and of which I have given the Minister notice. A company in my constituency called Ultra Hydraulics has employed 252 people. It is owned by an American company—a joint venture between Commercial Intertech and its partner Parker Hannifin in Ohio. One of the partners has been systematically transferring work from Tewkesbury to Chemnitz in Germany, with the consequent loss of 252 jobs.
The parent company blames sustained losses, the strength of the pound and the prevailing economic conditions in this country, but it also blames the incentives being offered to it by the German Government to relocate there. Will the Minister consider those incentives? Are they legal? I should like an assurance from her that she will look into the matter.
My second point, on a slightly more positive note, concerns the A400M airbus project. I welcome the long-awaited decision to order 25 of those planes, should the project go ahead. British jobs—again, many jobs in my constituency—will depend on it, but they will also depend on fair competition rules. We need to ensure that any help that is afforded to companies in France particularly, but on the continent generally, is also available to companies here. British companies should not be disadvantaged in this respect. In the case of aerospace-type work in particular, the set-up costs are very high. Our Government should give at least as much help to our companies as, say, the French give theirs. The Minister must persuade the Europeans to follow suit and pledge to support the project. Otherwise, the project simply will not go ahead, and, obviously, jobs will be created and safeguarded only if it does go ahead.
I am not asking for intervention or state control in manufacturing industry. The industry made itself great, and Government interference is often the problem rather than the solution; but Governments can create the right conditions, which I am asking this Government to do. I am looking for a recognition of the value of manufacturing to the economy and to our wealth generally. I am looking for an understanding of how hard it is to manufacture goods. So much can go wrong, and, as I have said, the margins are so slim, especially when some workers in the world are earning trifling amounts in wages and yet producing the same goods. I am looking for lower taxation and less burdensome regulation, and I am looking for a determination to make British manufacturing prevail again.

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on securing a debate on an extremely important issue. It is important not just to his and, indeed, my constituents but to our country.
As the hon. Gentleman readily acknowledged, we had a full debate on manufacturing industry only yesterday. In that debate, he referred to statistics, as did the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that although 160,000 manufacturing jobs have indeed been lost since the election three years ago, that compares with an average loss of 140,000 manufacturing jobs a year under the Conservative Government whom he supported.
Although some manufacturing jobs have indeed been lost over the past three years, for reasons that we well understand, total employment in our country is higher by more than 900,000. Nearly 1 million more people are employed now than have been employed since records began. We have a sound, proud record of rising employment and rapidly falling unemployment.
We may not agree on the statistics, but I can at least agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of manufacturing industry. I am increasingly concerned about the tendency of much of the press and some commentators to talk of the new economy and the old economy. That is very misleading. Most of the time, such talk brings with it an implication not only that the new economy is all about dot.coms and the internet and all the very exciting stuff for which I have a certain responsibility as Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, but that that is all the new economy consists of, and that the old economy—which is always associated with traditional manufacturing sectors—is somehow destined to decline and die. That is, of course, absolute rubbish.
The new technologies—including, but not only, the information and communications technology underlying the internet—are transforming every sector of the economy. They are also transforming every part of the production process and almost all the goods and services that we buy. Therefore, a high-tech, science-based and modern manufacturing sector is just as much a part of the global, 21st century, knowledge-driven economy as the service sector, the dot.com companies and the rest of the so-called new economy.
It is very important that we get that message across to City analysts, to the financial institutions that make investment decisions and to the public. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I might well agree on that point. However, I can assure him that there is no confusion at all within the Government about the importance of manufacturing industry. Moreover, as this is an Adjournment debate, I shall not dwell on the lamentable record of the previous Government, who killed off large parts of United Kingdom manufacturing industry in two disastrous recessions, in the early 1980s and in the early 1990s.
The other thing that is happening under the impact particularly of information and communications technology is that the distinction between the manufacturing and the service sectors is becoming increasingly blurred. It is important that we understand that, too. In a modern luxury car, for example—as the


hon. Gentleman said, cars have been somewhat in the news recently—70 per cent. of the value comes from the design, styling and, above all, intelligence—the computing power and the communications power—that are embedded within it. Therefore, it is manufacturing, but it is also services.
Let us consider the example of the internet, e-commerce and dot.com companies that have been so much the fashion recently. As the Minister responsible for e-commerce, I am constantly struck by the sheer volume of manufacturing industry that is required by the internet, the telecommunications and, increasingly, the converging sectors.
Earlier today, I had the pleasure of going to Colt's new internet hosting centre. Colt is not only a rapidly growing British-based telecommunications company, but the first telecommunications company to be licensed after the telecommunications duopoly collapsed some years ago. What I saw there was bank upon bank and row upon row of intensely intelligent, expensive and highly engineered manufactured equipment which are the servers enabling the very secure hosting of websites and other services for Colt's hundreds—and, in future, undoubtedly many more—business clients. That type of facility is developing in many parts of London, which is one of the centres for electronic commerce, particularly in the European Union.
All of that depends on high-tech manufacturing, and ever more of that high-tech manufacturing is being done in the United Kingdom. We are European and world leaders in many parts of the electronics and components industry, which is enormously important to our economic future, to employment and to the standard of living that we can offer our people. Therefore, there is certainly no misunderstanding or mistake on the Government's part about the importance of manufacturing and the need to ensure that the environment is right to get the investment in the high-tech, high-value-added and highly competitive manufacturing base of the future.
The hon. Gentleman and I agree that it is not the proper role of a modern Government to run industry. However, it is the Government's responsibility to create an environment in which modern manufacturing and every other part of the economy can flourish. Our first and most important task as a Government was to create a stable economy—a stable macro-economic environment and an end to the cycle of boom and bust that has bedevilled the British economy not just for the past 20 years, but for the past 30 or 40 years.
The economic cycle has been far more intense in the United Kingdom than in our competitor countries. We have had far higher upswings of unsustainable, inflationary, above-trend growth and far more severe and damaging recessions that plunged home owners into negative equity and businesses into bankruptcy. That was a disaster for manufacturing, for business generally and for long-term investment, because more than any other factor the cycle of boom and bust accounts for the fact that long-term investment in productive capacity in our country has been so much lower than it has been in Germany or the USA, with the result that we face a severe productivity gap. One can argue about the numbers and the different ways of measurement, but one cannot argue about the reality of the productivity gap between us and France, Japan and the USA. That holds us back.
Our first task was to secure economic stability and our first decision was to take the politics out of interest rates by giving the Bank of England independence to set them. As a result, we have not only got inflation down and kept it down, but we have the lowest long-term—and, indeed, short-term—interest rates that we have had for a long time, with no prospect in this or, I think, the next economic cycle of returning to the appalling situation that we had under the previous Government, when interest rates were above 10 per cent. for four years on end, peaking at 15 per cent. I remember only too well the pain and devastation that that caused to home owners and businesses alike.
We are making decisions for the long term and building for long-term economic stability. We are not going to put that long-term stability at risk by trying to provide short-term fixes. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last week, we well understand that the exchange rate between sterling and the euro does not reflect any sensible view of long-term economic fundamentals. We readily acknowledge that that rate creates real difficulties for any company seeking to export into the eurozone. That particularly affects manufacturing.
However, that does not mean that we should seek an artificial devaluation of the currency. It is worth remembering that against the dollar, the pound has been remarkably stable for the past four years. The suggestion that sterling is fundamentally overvalued does not hold water. The problem clearly has much more to do with the weakness of the euro. The hon. Gentleman expressed his view and that of a large part of the Conservative party about the euro, but one reason for our commitment in principle to joining a successful single currency if the economic conditions are met is that it would eliminate the exchange rate instability that has been so damaging and that has created such difficult conditions for manufacturing industry and other exporters.

Mr. Robertson: Does the Minister recognise that the two recessions that she referred to—those in 1988 and 1991—were caused by the Conservative Government trying to skew the economy to keep the pound at artificial levels? The problem is not the fluctuation of the exchange rate, but that sterling is at too high a level. Locking sterling into the single currency would mean that that situation existed for ever, rather than just for a brief time, as was the case under the exchange rate mechanism.

Ms Hewitt: I said that we wanted to join a successful single currency if and when the five economic conditions were met. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the economic conditions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has laid down, but I readily remind him that we would have to be satisfied that convergence between our economy and that of the eurozone countries had been achieved on a lasting basis, not on a temporary basis, and that membership of a successful single currency would be good for jobs, business and the City. Clearly, that would not have been the case had we joined last year, or indeed if we were to join this year, and that is why we are not joining.
I stress that we are not about to engineer an artificial devaluation of the currency against the euro. We are not about to try some short-term fix that might or might not produce short-term gain but would undoubtedly put at risk long-term economic stability and would throw away the prize that we have secured of departing from the long-term post-war record of boom and bust that is at the heart of the economic problems from which we have suffered.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the recessions under the Conservative Government, and I am glad that he was willing to acknowledge their mistakes. There is no doubt at all that the policy of the former Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, in trying to pursue an inflation target and an exchange rate target through the shadowing of the deutschmark, was absolutely fatal. Some right hon. and hon. Members—notably those on the Liberal Benches—would have us repeat that mistake and that would not be at all sensible.
The hon. Gentleman referred to two local issues. I was extremely sorry to hear of the loss of 250 jobs that would result from the closure of Ultra Hydraulics. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness in April. When I checked up on that, I found that my hon. Friend and his office have absolutely no record of having received that letter, but of course the hon. Gentleman will now receive a reply. After an initial glance, we do not have enough information about the suggestion that the German Government may be offering state aid in breach of the European state aid rules to try to entice Chemnitz to relocate Ultra

Hydraulics to Germany. However, we shall readily explore the matter with the hon. Gentleman and if we can get chapter and verse we shall pursue the issue.
Following the announcement of those redundancies, the Employment Service has granted large-scale redundancy status which means that rapid response funding has been approved so that workers made redundant from Ultra Hydraulics will be given additional fast-track help in job searches and, if it proves necessary, in retraining to secure new employment. I hope that that will be of real assistance to his constituents who are at risk of losing their jobs. Gloucestershire development agency has been in contact with the company to discuss the help that is available locally and through the regional development agency.
Finally, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman repeated his welcome for the announcement that we made on the award of the A400M airbus project. I know that it is a matter of great concern to him. Indeed, I know that he saw my noble Friend Baroness Symons back in March to discuss the project and was accompanied at that meeting by the managing director of Dowty Propellers and the marketing director of Ultra Electronics—both, I think, companies in his consituncy engaged in the development of that aircraft. Like him, I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that the Ministry of Defence will procure missiles—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.